• AccidentalLemming@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re saying France convicted people for terrorism purely because they used encryption? That’s a bold claim. What’s your source?

    • nyoooom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not quite sure which case, I think it was about activists (not sure tho), but these fact were indeed used as an argument to support the idea that they were terrorists, because they’re trying to hide something

      • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a fucked up legal system…

        The fact that you care about privacy means that you are hiding something which means that you are now a terrorist.

        That sort of broken logic can apply to almost anything

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The fact that you care about privacy means that you are hiding something which means that you are now a terrorist.

          Closer to “we think you are terrorists, but cannot prove it because You’ve encrypted all the relevant sources of evidence. Therefore you must not only be hiding something, but hiding evidence that you did what we accused you of, which is clear evidence that you are a terrorist, or else you wouldn’t be hiding the evidence of your terrorism from us.”

          Which is if anything even worse, since it presupposes that any accusation made is definitely true by default. Guilt until proven innocence has a bad track record.