3 ms·

“ Sophisticated encrypted communication devices have been used extensively by criminals to facilitate organised crime. We’re targeting the modified and bespoke

“ Sophisticated encrypted communication devices have been used extensively by criminals to facilitate organised crime. We’re targeting the modified and bespoke devices that enable access to platforms, similar to Encro Chat, where the software/ hardware has been developed to anonymise its users and their communications and its user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal. Under Option 1 where articles will be specified, we will be targeting those that supply, modify, and possess these bespoke devices; the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them.” Seems to suggest that handsets explicitly made for anonymous encryption could be banned, but not messaging apps on normal phones.

tobr 4y ago
How can it possibly matter that the “user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal”? Like, if you criminalize using such a device, I suppose the whole user base is now criminal. But if they already were and you can prove it, why do you need to criminalize the device as well?
- costco 4y ago
  Here is an example they give: >The case relates to an alleged conspiracy to transfer cash in excess of £10m out of the UK. >A number of defendants were charged with conspiracy to remove criminal property from England and Wales contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Mr A was a relative of one of the defendants (Mr B). They both lived at the same address. When Mr B was arrested, the officers recovered an encrypted EncroChat telephone which Mr A admitted was his. Another defendant (Mr C) stated that he had been instructed to call Mr A on the EncroChat telephone once he had safely boarded the flight with the cash. >Mr A denied any knowledge or involvement in any of the criminal activities. Mr A had no legitimate income that would have allowed him to own and maintain such an expensive mobile device. >Based on available intelligence, the investigating team strongly believed that Mr A had been supplied with the EncroChat telephone by an OCG for the purpose of carrying out conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, investigators were unable to access any data from the telephone due to the device’s security features which led to the data automatically deleting after a few days. It was assessed that there was not sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences. It doesn't really make sense to me though. Presumably the penalty if he were to unlock the phone would have been way higher than the penalty they are going to create for possessing such a device.

tobr 4y ago

How can it possibly matter that the “user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal”? Like, if you criminalize using such a device, I suppose the whole user base is now criminal. But if they already were and you can prove it, why do you need to criminalize the device as well?

costco 4y ago
Here is an example they give: >The case relates to an alleged conspiracy to transfer cash in excess of £10m out of the UK. >A number of defendants were charged with conspiracy to remove criminal property from England and Wales contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Mr A was a relative of one of the defendants (Mr B). They both lived at the same address. When Mr B was arrested, the officers recovered an encrypted EncroChat telephone which Mr A admitted was his. Another defendant (Mr C) stated that he had been instructed to call Mr A on the EncroChat telephone once he had safely boarded the flight with the cash. >Mr A denied any knowledge or involvement in any of the criminal activities. Mr A had no legitimate income that would have allowed him to own and maintain such an expensive mobile device. >Based on available intelligence, the investigating team strongly believed that Mr A had been supplied with the EncroChat telephone by an OCG for the purpose of carrying out conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, investigators were unable to access any data from the telephone due to the device’s security features which led to the data automatically deleting after a few days. It was assessed that there was not sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences. It doesn't really make sense to me though. Presumably the penalty if he were to unlock the phone would have been way higher than the penalty they are going to create for possessing such a device.