Re: It's important this is done openly
> There's an important and fundamental difference between blanket surveillance of all comms in the hope of finding criminality and the targetting of a specific platform seemingly, openly intended for criminal use
Openly intended for criminal use according to whom? The prosecutors who have a vested interest in painting the service in as negative a light as possible, that's who!
Wikipedia informs that EncroChat had 60,000 subscribers at the end, but the court claims only "over 1000" arrests. That sounds like an awful lot of people using the service who were not part of "organised crime gangs"!
Did law enforcement have strong evidence that the service was "used solely as a means for organised crime gangs" (note: solely is a strong assertion!) before applying for the warrant to take over the service? Or did they just make that claim unfounded because "those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear"?
It's not only criminals who need encrypted communications. How many political dissidents were caught up in this dragnet, I wonder?