3 ms·

In a way ot reminds me of the Phantom Secure story. If you are suspected to purpusefully facilitate crime, you can be held responsible. This seems to be true as

• tptacek 2y ago
  It's so much worse than that (at least under US law, but I assume French law, which has fewer speech and evidentiary protections, is worse still). By putting himself in the position where he was clearly and straightforwardly able to furnish assistance to criminal investigations, he likely acquired some form of accomplice liability (or whatever equivalent they have in France) as soon as he refused to comply with a lawful order: the refusal itself is a purposeful facilitation. That's a distinction between end-to-end encrypted applications and cosmetically "secure" apps like Telegram.
  • boudin 2y ago
    That's what I meant, the lack of cooperation is what shows the lack of intent, in the end. I do not understand why this is turned around a "freedom of speech" thing as there is nothing about censoring speech in the first place, this all about criminal activity happening on the platform and the responsibility of the business behind the platform.