3 ms·

I heard this story elsewhere, and the attitude of law enforcement infuriated me. It was basically, “Only criminals would care about their privacy to purchase th

I heard this story elsewhere, and the attitude of law enforcement infuriated me. It was basically, “Only criminals would care about their privacy to purchase this premium phone, so of course we needed to crack it”. Screw everyone else who did not want more ad tracking or whatever.

proxynoproxy 2y ago
I agree in part, but nobody legit is paying $200/month to use signal or other free secure private messengers. If it was a free platform I can see innocents getting caught, but considering it was sold by criminals, to criminals for a criminal fee — I think they were mostly correct.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  But there are many open source, free, and actually secure messengers...
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    not in the late 2010s when this was happening.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      There was (is) one though, audited by NCC Group in 2015. A vuln has been found but fixed by 2016. Not sure about other messengers.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  Granted I’m hazy on the details of the story, but I did not recall a service fee. Just a few hundred dollars premium Android phone geared towards secure privacy. Sure, there was a nudge and a wink towards crime, but I could easily see it appealing to a civil protestor, journalist, or philanderer.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    It was only available from a salesman, you couldn't order it via a website. The salesmen knew their clients, and knew they were criminals. The sales chain was what made the operation so effective. The only people who had the phones were the ones the FBI wanted with the phones.
pyuser583 2y ago
Law enforcement was paranoid about making sure it only went to criminals. It was producing so much intelligence, any non-criminal usage wasted lots of time. The fact that it was really only criminals using it was the big selling point.

3 ms·

I heard this story elsewhere, and the attitude of law enforcement infuriated me. It was basically, “Only criminals would care about their privacy to purchase th

by 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago

proxynoproxy 2y ago
I agree in part, but nobody legit is paying $200/month to use signal or other free secure private messengers. If it was a free platform I can see innocents getting caught, but considering it was sold by criminals, to criminals for a criminal fee — I think they were mostly correct.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  But there are many open source, free, and actually secure messengers...
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    not in the late 2010s when this was happening.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnisgood 2y ago
      There was (is) one though, audited by NCC Group in 2015. A vuln has been found but fixed by 2016. Not sure about other messengers.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  Granted I’m hazy on the details of the story, but I did not recall a service fee. Just a few hundred dollars premium Android phone geared towards secure privacy. Sure, there was a nudge and a wink towards crime, but I could easily see it appealing to a civil protestor, journalist, or philanderer.
  - pyuser583 2y ago
    It was only available from a salesman, you couldn't order it via a website. The salesmen knew their clients, and knew they were criminals. The sales chain was what made the operation so effective. The only people who had the phones were the ones the FBI wanted with the phones.
pyuser583 2y ago
Law enforcement was paranoid about making sure it only went to criminals. It was producing so much intelligence, any non-criminal usage wasted lots of time. The fact that it was really only criminals using it was the big selling point.