I think there needs to be a certain level of reasonableness when tracing back liability. I mean, why stop at the ISPs? Why not take it all the way up to RIPE for allocating IPs to the company? Or how about the telecommunication companies that used government allocated RF spectrum to facilitate the communications. In that case, the telecoms and the Government(s) themselves should be liable.
As for people wanting to talk to their sweetie without being monitored, I believe authorities have already said people who were using the services for legitimate purposes may request to have their communications excluded from any legal proceedings and naturally, won't be prosecuted just for using the devices.
Yes, of course, the criminal side is well understood. Except, of course, the massive wiretapping without a warrant part.
Gun sellers have been pretty safe from prosecution for selling a gun that gets used in a crime. Why not encrypted communications companies? That's the distinction I wonder about. (Hopefully using the 'g' word wont further derail the conversation)
Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. So the case I was referring to earlier as a recent example, was Backpage. I think there are some key elements that need to be met, but you can see with that case where lines can be crossed. I’m not arguing encrypted communication companies should be liable for all activities using their service. However, if a company specifically markets to criminals, in my mind, that gets really close to crossing a line.
I think it’s the difference between facilitation and knowingly facilitating. With the gun store example, if the person purchasing the weapon said “I’m going to go kill someone, can you tell me which gun would be best for that?”, the gun store would be absolutely liable if they sold them the gun.
Gun stores have expertise in 'personal protection' weapons. They sell guns to people all the time with the express intention of being easiest to use and the most fatal.
I'd say, marketing to criminals seems pretty close to the line, but depending on the conversation its no closer than the 'personal protection' sale? As long as they're not advocating "use this to break laws", they're just selling privacy. Like selling a fence for your yard or padlocks for your house. No natural illegal nature to those sales. Even if they ultimately get used to conceal crimes etc.
As for people wanting to talk to their sweetie without being monitored, I believe authorities have already said people who were using the services for legitimate purposes may request to have their communications excluded from any legal proceedings and naturally, won't be prosecuted just for using the devices.