> implication that selling a product designed for privacy and secure communication is inherently intending to facilitate criminal activity. At what point is the

> implication that selling a product designed for privacy and secure communication is inherently intending to facilitate criminal activity. At what point is the line crossed? There are products with seemingly fewer 'legitimate' uses that don't appear to cross this line such as lock picks, police radar detectors, miniature surveillance equipment, etc. The legal basis depends on the country. But in general, that line is always crossed when you market your product for the purposes of facilitating criminal activity. Distancing yourself from the consequences of the illegal activities performed with your product becomes much more difficult. That he knew about, actively participated in and marketed the platform for drug trafficking was a large part of what damned the Silk Road op-- he couldn't (successfully) make the "b-b-but I was just running a website!" defense. There's a behavioral aspect to it too though. The idea is one that you can sell a box of armor-piercing rounds to a civilian and he'll use them lawfully, to go shoot up some pesky armored deer or abandoned cars or something. But if you specifically sell him "cop killer"-branded bullets, you're giving him the idea that this is an acceptable use for the product. We don't want that in society.