Yet the tone of the later paragraphs in that section is axiomatically assuming they should be able to prosecute the makers of the encrypted devices, or anyone p

Yet the tone of the later paragraphs in that section is axiomatically assuming they should be able to prosecute the makers of the encrypted devices, or anyone possessing such a phone, in addition to the 2,864 criminals they already caught using them. All while implicitly admitting there's nothing fundamentally illegal about building or possessing a strongly encrypted device. Seriously police should be thanking the makers of this device that enabled the UK to arrest 2,864 criminals.