Spanish Judge Cites Use of Secure Email As a Potential Terrorist Indicator
An anonymous reader writes Is it possible that using secure email services can be construed as an indicator of being a terrorist? Although it's a ridiculous notion that using secure email implies criminal activities, a judge cited that reason to partially justify arrests in Spain. In December, as part of "an anti-terrorist initiative" Operation Pandora, over 400 cops raided 14 houses and social centers in Spain. They seized computers, books, and leaflets and arrested 11 people. Four were released under surveillance, but seven were "accused of undefined terrorism" and held in a Madrid prison. This led to "tens of thousands" participating in protests. As terrorism is alleged "without specifying concrete criminal acts," the attorney for those seven "anarchists" denounced the lack of transparency.
Since governments tap and read everything; if they can't read it, according to them you must be hiding something.
If you are hiding something, you don't trust the government.
If you don't trust the government, you must be a terrorist.
Other people have nothing to hide in their eyes.
Will all potentially dangerous terrorists use secure mail: Yes, thanks to Snowden, they know that unsecured electronic communication will get them identified.
Do other people use secure mail: Yes, some of us have our reasons.
Do most people use secure mail: No. Most people don't care enough.
Does using secure mail automatically make one a terrorist in the eyes of a spanish judge: No, but it does let him quickly winnow out those who might need another look.
Is this a bullshit story: Yup, click-bait right up there with Timothy's usual confusion of correlation & causation.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
While we're at it, whispering is also highly suspicious and should be illegal.