6 ms·

I have to agree. This is a clever way to catch criminals that doesn't particularly harm non-criminals. I'll take this over the anti-encryption campaign the FBI

I have to agree. This is a clever way to catch criminals that doesn't particularly harm non-criminals. I'll take this over the anti-encryption campaign the FBI has been on for the past 10 or 20 years.

sneak 5y ago
Anyone who wasn't a criminal who bought one of these phones for privacy was harmed.
- Denvercoder9 5y ago
  Non-criminal privacy focused people are much more likely to use standard devices with publicly known apps such as Signal. You couldn't buy this phone in stores, it was specifically distributed on the black market. It wasn't a good choice if you're privacy-conscious anyway, since there was no source code available, so you couldn't check it actually does what it claimed.
  - sneak 5y ago
    This is victim blaming. Innocent (and clueless) people seeking privacy had their privacy violated by this action.
    - Denvercoder9 5y ago
      > Innocent (and clueless) people seeking privacy had their privacy violated by this action. You state this as fact without any proof. The AFP and FBI assert that 100% of the users were engaged in criminal activity. Given the distribution method, which included vetting by a known criminal organization, the requirement to have an account created by administrators that are again known to be criminal, and the ability to only contact others on the same network, I tend to believe that assertion until I see proof otherwise.
      - sneak 5y ago
        > The AFP and FBI assert that 100% of the users were engaged in criminal activity. Don't take cop statements at face value unless they're proven in open court. If you're not familiar with the US policies around such things, lying is part of the job for police there. Most cases end up in plea bargains, which allows prosecutors and cops to avoid having to actually prove anything in court to secure a guilty verdict as part of a plea agreement. Very few police accusations actually end up being proven with evidence.
        Denvercoder9 5y ago
        Be that as it may, they've still offered more evidence than you. I don't take assertions from random HN commenters without any supporting evidence at face value either.
- fouric 5y ago
  What "harm" did these people experience, exactly?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  If they were harmed then they can sue. Have any sued?
krisoft 5y ago
> I'll take this over the anti-encryption campaign the FBI has been on for the past 10 or 20 years. The problem is that these things go hand in hand. The criminals wont buy from the poisoned channel if they can get the security they need from the standard consumer models. If you go to T-mobile, and you get the option everyone gets and it is end-to-end encrypted properly and there aren't any remote exploits then the criminals will just use that.

sneak 5y ago

Anyone who wasn't a criminal who bought one of these phones for privacy was harmed.

Denvercoder9 5y ago
Non-criminal privacy focused people are much more likely to use standard devices with publicly known apps such as Signal. You couldn't buy this phone in stores, it was specifically distributed on the black market. It wasn't a good choice if you're privacy-conscious anyway, since there was no source code available, so you couldn't check it actually does what it claimed.
- sneak 5y ago
  This is victim blaming. Innocent (and clueless) people seeking privacy had their privacy violated by this action.
  - Denvercoder9 5y ago
    > Innocent (and clueless) people seeking privacy had their privacy violated by this action. You state this as fact without any proof. The AFP and FBI assert that 100% of the users were engaged in criminal activity. Given the distribution method, which included vetting by a known criminal organization, the requirement to have an account created by administrators that are again known to be criminal, and the ability to only contact others on the same network, I tend to believe that assertion until I see proof otherwise.
    - sneak 5y ago
      > The AFP and FBI assert that 100% of the users were engaged in criminal activity. Don't take cop statements at face value unless they're proven in open court. If you're not familiar with the US policies around such things, lying is part of the job for police there. Most cases end up in plea bargains, which allows prosecutors and cops to avoid having to actually prove anything in court to secure a guilty verdict as part of a plea agreement. Very few police accusations actually end up being proven with evidence.
      - Denvercoder9 5y ago
        Be that as it may, they've still offered more evidence than you. I don't take assertions from random HN commenters without any supporting evidence at face value either.
fouric 5y ago
What "harm" did these people experience, exactly?
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
If they were harmed then they can sue. Have any sued?

krisoft 5y ago

> I'll take this over the anti-encryption campaign the FBI has been on for the past 10 or 20 years. The problem is that these things go hand in hand. The criminals wont buy from the poisoned channel if they can get the security they need from the standard consumer models. If you go to T-mobile, and you get the option everyone gets and it is end-to-end encrypted properly and there aren't any remote exploits then the criminals will just use that.