4 ms·

No, it still doesn't answer my question. For one, this is the part that looks a lot like entrapment. Putting that aside, it doesn't logically follow that what i

No, it still doesn't answer my question. For one, this is the part that looks a lot like entrapment. Putting that aside, it doesn't logically follow that what is effectively a sales pitch about a use of the product for coordinating illegal activity implies that that was the primary intent of the product. The "too" in the quote from the transcript is important there. It implies that there was a primary use case (presumably legal private communication) but that they considered the use case under discussion too. It's not even clear when the use of the product in this case becomes illegal. Merely using a secure device for encrypted communication is not illegal. If that communication involves planning criminal acts then presumably the parties communicating can be charged with conspiracy but since these were encrypted communications does evidence for that actually exist? Communication does not become criminal merely because it is engaged in by criminals, they have to actually be conspiring to commit a crime and in the case of non drug offenses they have to actually take steps to commit that crime in the US. Car companies specifically design their cars to be able to exceed legal speed limits. Does that make them liable when drivers break speed limits?

fmj 9y ago
>Car companies specifically design their cars to be able to exceed legal speed limits. Does that make them liable when drivers break speed limits? They're not being charged with creating an illegal phone, they being charged with conspiracy to import a controlled substance. Making an encrypted phone is perfectly legal, it became a conspiracy when they agreed to tamper with evidence for a client who had already stated they intend to use their service for drug trafficking communications (which was explicitly acknowledged.) All they had to do was make it clear to their customers that they didn't want to know the details of what they were using the phones to discuss, and refuse to do business with anyone who mentions illegal activity to them. >For one, this is the part that looks a lot like entrapment. How so? The undercover agents asked if they could use the service to communicate about drugs (implying that's what they would use it for) and the company agreed. The agents then asked them to wipe a phone that had been captured by the police and the company knowingly tampered with evidence on their behalf. Merely providing someone with an opportunity to participate in a crime isn't entrapment.
- mattnewport 9y ago
  From reading the complaint conspiracy seems like a stretch. There is in general no legal obligation to report a crime that you suspect has been or will be committed. Part of their service is to wipe phones on request. They had no subpoena to preserve evidence and no legal obligation to report suspected illegal activity. Perhaps tampering with evidence or obstruction of justice applies here, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the case. Again from reading the complaint it looks like entrapment. Most of what they quote looks analogous to a car company saying their car is very fast and then an undercover cop asking if that means it's fast enough to outrun the police if they use it as a getaway vehicle. Confirming that factually yes it would be seems some way short of conspiracy. No "real" crime is committed in answering such questions truthfully. Creating a conspiracy charge out of those answers looks like a stretch to me.
  - 1024core 9y ago
    > From reading the complaint conspiracy seems like a stretch. This "conspiracy" charge is what Law Enforcement uses when they have nothing else.
  - evgen 9y ago
    You apparently do not understand the legal concept of 'conspiracy' nor do you understand what 'entrapment' actually means in practice. Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' If the facts, as presented in the article and linked complaint, hold up in court then the conspiracy charge is likely to stick and any claims made regarding entrapment will not be made by the defense because counsel for the defendant is unlikely to harbor a desire to be laughed at in court by a judge.
    - alsetmusic 9y ago
      > Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' Given that you have not included links to support your own conclusions, the same could be said about your comment.
jonathanstrange 9y ago
I think you're outlining one possible legal strategy of the defence. Don't forget that someone can be arrested on a much weaker evidential and legal basis than being found guilty. Of course, the prosecutors interpret the law in their favour, just as the defence will do whenever possible.

fmj 9y ago

>Car companies specifically design their cars to be able to exceed legal speed limits. Does that make them liable when drivers break speed limits? They're not being charged with creating an illegal phone, they being charged with conspiracy to import a controlled substance. Making an encrypted phone is perfectly legal, it became a conspiracy when they agreed to tamper with evidence for a client who had already stated they intend to use their service for drug trafficking communications (which was explicitly acknowledged.) All they had to do was make it clear to their customers that they didn't want to know the details of what they were using the phones to discuss, and refuse to do business with anyone who mentions illegal activity to them. >For one, this is the part that looks a lot like entrapment. How so? The undercover agents asked if they could use the service to communicate about drugs (implying that's what they would use it for) and the company agreed. The agents then asked them to wipe a phone that had been captured by the police and the company knowingly tampered with evidence on their behalf. Merely providing someone with an opportunity to participate in a crime isn't entrapment.

mattnewport 9y ago
From reading the complaint conspiracy seems like a stretch. There is in general no legal obligation to report a crime that you suspect has been or will be committed. Part of their service is to wipe phones on request. They had no subpoena to preserve evidence and no legal obligation to report suspected illegal activity. Perhaps tampering with evidence or obstruction of justice applies here, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the case. Again from reading the complaint it looks like entrapment. Most of what they quote looks analogous to a car company saying their car is very fast and then an undercover cop asking if that means it's fast enough to outrun the police if they use it as a getaway vehicle. Confirming that factually yes it would be seems some way short of conspiracy. No "real" crime is committed in answering such questions truthfully. Creating a conspiracy charge out of those answers looks like a stretch to me.
- 1024core 9y ago
  > From reading the complaint conspiracy seems like a stretch. This "conspiracy" charge is what Law Enforcement uses when they have nothing else.
- evgen 9y ago
  You apparently do not understand the legal concept of 'conspiracy' nor do you understand what 'entrapment' actually means in practice. Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' If the facts, as presented in the article and linked complaint, hold up in court then the conspiracy charge is likely to stick and any claims made regarding entrapment will not be made by the defense because counsel for the defendant is unlikely to harbor a desire to be laughed at in court by a judge.
  - alsetmusic 9y ago
    > Until you do it would probably be wise for you to stop sharing your unfounded opinions about the law or else preface them with a big, bold statement like 'I have no idea what I am talking about here, but would like the facts of the case to be read in a manner that matches my political whims regardless of existing laws and precedent.' Given that you have not included links to support your own conclusions, the same could be said about your comment.

jonathanstrange 9y ago

I think you're outlining one possible legal strategy of the defence. Don't forget that someone can be arrested on a much weaker evidential and legal basis than being found guilty. Of course, the prosecutors interpret the law in their favour, just as the defence will do whenever possible.