It's odd how murky this is, considering that it was adjudicated in court. The BBC says[0]: >A court in Madrid heard it was assumed the message triggered alarm

It's odd how murky this is, considering that it was adjudicated in court. The BBC says[0]: >A court in Madrid heard it was assumed the message triggered alarm bells after being picked up via Gatwick's Wi-Fi network. But that seems implausible, given that Snapchat messages are encrypted (if not end-to-end, then at least client-to-server, which should be sufficient to prevent interception via a Wi-Fi network). And why would the court hear what is "assumed"? Shouldn't the investigator(s) who testified know how the messages came into their possession? Then The Daily Mail says[1]: >As [sic] spokesman for Gatwick Airport denied any suggestion their network could be compromised. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68056421 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68056421 [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13000923/snooped-airport-wifi-cyber-expert-warn-monitoring-chess-terror-alert-bombing-plane.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13000923/snooped-ai...