[Denvercoder9]

Non-criminal privacy focused people are much more likely to use standard devices with publicly known apps such as Signal. You couldn't buy this phone in stores, it was specifically distributed on the black market.

It wasn't a good choice if you're privacy-conscious anyway, since there was no source code available, so you couldn't check it actually does what it claimed.

[sneak]

This is victim blaming.

Innocent (and clueless) people seeking privacy had their privacy violated by this action.

[Denvercoder9]

> Innocent (and clueless) people seeking privacy had their privacy violated by this action.

You state this as fact without any proof. The AFP and FBI assert that 100% of the users were engaged in criminal activity. Given the distribution method, which included vetting by a known criminal organization, the requirement to have an account created by administrators that are again known to be criminal, and the ability to only contact others on the same network, I tend to believe that assertion until I see proof otherwise.

[sneak]

> The AFP and FBI assert that 100% of the users were engaged in criminal activity.

Don't take cop statements at face value unless they're proven in open court.

If you're not familiar with the US policies around such things, lying is part of the job for police there. Most cases end up in plea bargains, which allows prosecutors and cops to avoid having to actually prove anything in court to secure a guilty verdict as part of a plea agreement.

Very few police accusations actually end up being proven with evidence.

[Denvercoder9]

Be that as it may, they've still offered more evidence than you. I don't take assertions from random HN commenters without any supporting evidence at face value either.