Another sign of the flimsy evidence is the mention that some customers used gangsta email address. Please, them and every 12 y/o I know. This has entrapment wr

Another sign of the flimsy evidence is the mention that some customers used gangsta email address. Please, them and every 12 y/o I know. This has entrapment written all over it. It's impossible for a service provider to ascertain if his customer is really breaking the law from his email handle or from such conversations. He might simply be making an analogy or reductio ad absurdum. What now, I'm supposed to say, "no, my security product can't resist an attack from law enforcement" although all crypto and math experts say it should? It's like coercing a gun dealer to say his product can't possibly kill cops in any circumstance. The prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the providers were privy to the nature of their customer's business and conspired with them to hide illegal activities from law enforcement.