I’m sorry but activists are absolutely not using services like Encrochat, these are for-profit companies catering to people with thousands to drop on a phone. Bad example to use.
Here is a literal journalist who used it talking about several families whose homes were raided because of encrochat data - raids in which no drugs or illegal material was discovered - and whose kids are still traumatized over it.
Three hundred bucks a month isn’t beyond the pale for people who might want to pay for security they aren’t certain they can set up on their own and REGARDLESS accepting it when cops backdoor their way into encrypted services sets a bad precedent.
Cops have said for DECADES that strong crypto is a threat to the rule of law and that it should be illegal to have cryptography that locks the police out of messaging systems and data exchanges. This is the sort of thing that gets weaponized against activists and political dissidents *immediately* every time it comes up.
Also what are you determining is a service “Like encrochat”? China considers Signal a service “like encrochat.”
The point I’m making here is that the argument “services like encrochat are used only by criminals so it’s okay if cops spy on them” is basically the exact justification that governments the world over use to try to ban ALL encryption and private messaging:
Sky Global has denied any wrongdoing, with CEO Eap saying “We stand for the protection of privacy and freedom of speech in an era when these rights are under increasing attack. We do not condone illegal or unethical behaviour by our partners or customers. To brand anyone who values privacy and freedom of speech as a criminal is an outrage.”
But Serbian Interior Minister Aleksandar Vulin said the use of such devices should be illegal.
“It is indisputable that it is used by criminals,” Vulin said on March 7. “I am in favour of it being a crime, as I believe that the purchase of any telephone number, regardless of whether it is prepaid or postpaid, must be done with an ID card.”
“It may not stop criminals from using it, but if nothing else it will give the police another reason to arrest them and remove them from the streets.”
Some journalists and rights advocates say this is a slippery slope.
“Encryption is a tool. And like any tool, it can be used for good and for bad,” said Fabian Scherschel, a freelance journalist, writer and podcaster who has covered the topic closely.
“We’ve already seen legislation against so-called ‘hacker tools’ massively backfire and threaten to criminalise the legitimate work of IT security specialists and journalists. I have a feeling this legislation could cause similar problems. It will also, most likely, make it easier to spy on the general populace, who has no intention of using encryption to hide criminal behaviour whatsoever.”
Diego Naranjo, head of policy at the Brussels-based advocacy group European Digital Rights, EDRi, said it was important to challenge the narrative that encryption is only used by criminals.
“As any other interference with human rights, an attack on encryption or privacy-enhancing technologies needs to be prescribed by law, necessary and proportionate to the aims to be achieved in a democratic society,” said Naranjo.
He noted that the EncroChat and Sky ECC cases had demonstrated that law enforcement agencies have ways to penetrate such communication.
“We may be already in the Crypto wars 3.0, and it is up to us to ensure that encryption is perceived as a tool to ensure human rights and not something only criminals use.”
turnnoffyourmind
snowghoul
annaxmalina
izzy806
stormborns
