And once more a privacy tool is attacked by state actors who frame it as "crime tool". They would not hesitate to take down Signal if it was politically viable.
Discussion
They can't even hide their malicious motives: this is about encryption, not crime.
> The encrypted communication landscape has become increasingly fragmented as a result of recent law enforcement actions targeting platforms used by criminal networks. Following these operations, numerous once-popular encrypted services have been shut down or disrupted, leading to a splintering of the market.
> Private companies that wish to ensure their services are used in compliance with the law also have an important role to play. They must ensure that their platforms are not safe havens for criminals and should provide mechanisms for lawful data access under judicial oversight and in full respect of fundamental rights.
Last six words are a lie. Or if you want to be generous: nothing more than paying lip service.
What I fail to understand is why criminals keep using these niche tools.
Just throwing an idea out there :
Criminal organizations are essentially child labour organizations. And not the smartest kids, low IQ, low education, poor risk assessment kids.
Similar to what the crypto community looks for, they also need ready to use, pre-made usable tools that are essentially fool proof.
Ready-to-use encryption networks that have no obvious ties to law enforcement are necessarily niche.
If they were to require each criminal cell to solder their own encryption devices and load some secure firmware and verify it, they would end up opening cellphone repair shops, not drug slinging operations.
Globalists won't stop until they've stamped out all privacy and free speech.
I don't know about "globalists". Europol is mostly interested in stomping out privacy, I don't think they care about free speech one way or the other. They are many such actors with narrow interests, which when combined form a threat to both these things.
They're controlled by globalists. It's obvious.
The mad thing is they're still gonna need something properly encrypted themselves
I saw that they'll need to check with the court to see if the way they "hacked" the network was legal.
They got away with never disclosing the method used against Encrochat. That says a lot about the ethics involved, but ultimately isn't that important: centralized systems gonna single point of failure.
why did I not know about it? hmmm.
should we get better at non-digital far distance, mass-communication somehow? or what can we learn?
Presumably they relied on security by obscurity and were not interested in mass adoption. That's what makes them a politically easy target. And probably not that technically sophisticated.