Do cellphones qualify? They are very sophisticated and full of encryption...
Seems to suggest that handsets explicitly made for anonymous encryption could be banned, but not messaging apps on normal phones.
>The case relates to an alleged conspiracy to transfer cash in excess of £10m out of the UK.
>A number of defendants were charged with conspiracy to remove criminal property from England and Wales contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Mr A was a relative of one of the defendants (Mr B). They both lived at the same address. When Mr B was arrested, the officers recovered an encrypted EncroChat telephone which Mr A admitted was his. Another defendant (Mr C) stated that he had been instructed to call Mr A on the EncroChat telephone once he had safely boarded the flight with the cash.
>Mr A denied any knowledge or involvement in any of the criminal activities. Mr A had no legitimate income that would have allowed him to own and maintain such an expensive mobile device.
>Based on available intelligence, the investigating team strongly believed that Mr A had been supplied with the EncroChat telephone by an OCG for the purpose of carrying out conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. However, investigators were unable to access any data from the telephone due to the device’s security features which led to the data automatically deleting after a few days. It was assessed that there was not sufficient evidence to seek to prosecute Mr A under existing offences.
It doesn't really make sense to me though. Presumably the penalty if he were to unlock the phone would have been way higher than the penalty they are going to create for possessing such a device.
> "the provisions will not apply to commercially available mobile phones nor the encrypted messaging apps available on them"
They say they're going after bespoke devices whose "user base is assessed to be almost certainly criminal". Of course, that's very open to interpretation.
Also they go on to discuss how simply providing or possessing one of these devices should be crime in itself because of the "difficulty of identifying legitimate uses for such technology". It's the classic "If you're trying to hide something you must be a criminal" approach.
Which then implies that commercial devices can be eavesdropped at will by the government.
law enforcement cares less about what people are saying, more about who is talking to who
Is selling a device on Ali Express enough to qualify?
> "This option would require the drafting of precise definitions of the specific articles, for example a definition of sophisticated encrypted communication devices which does not include all mobile phones."