Criminalization of encryption: The 8 December case

Ran it thru Google translate.

This article was written on the basis of information relating to the so-called “December 8” case1 in which 7 people were indicted for “terrorist criminal association” in December 2020. Their trial is scheduled for October 2023 This will be the first anti-terrorism trial targeting the “ultra-left” since the Tarnac2 fiasco. The charge of terrorism is forcefully rejected by the accused. The latter denounce a political trial, an incriminating investigation and a lack of evidence. They point in particular to decontextualized remarks and the use of trivial facts (sports, digital practices, readings and music listened to, etc.)3.

For their part, the police recognize that at the end of the investigation – and ten months of intensive surveillance – no “specific project” has been identified4. The State has just been sentenced for keeping the main accused in solitary confinement for 16 months and from which he was only released after a 37-day hunger strike. A second complaint, pending judgment, was filed against the illegal and repeated strip searches that an accused suffered in pre-trial detention5. Many personalities, media and collectives have given them their support6. It is in this context that we were alerted to the fact that, among the alleged facts (for an overall overview of the case, see the references in footnotes7), the digital practices of the accused, at first rank of which the use of encrypted messaging for the general public, are exploited as so many "proofs" of a so-called "clandestineness" which can only be explained by the existence of a terrorist project. We chose to denounce it. “All the members contacted adopted a clandestine behavior, with increased security of the means of communication (encrypted applications, Tails operating system, TOR protocol allowing anonymous browsing on the Internet and public wifi). " DGSI " All the members of this group were particularly suspicious, only communicated with each other through encrypted applications, in particular Signal, and proceeded to encrypt their computer media [...]. » Investigating magistrate These two sentences are emblematic of the attack carried out against the historic battles of La Quadrature du Net in the case of December 8, which are the right to encryption8 of communications9, the fight against the exploitation of personal data by the GAFAM10, the right to intimacy and private life as well as the dissemination and appropriation of computer knowledge11.

Combining fantasies, bad faith and technical incompetence, the elements communicated to us reveal that a police story is built around the (good) digital practices of the accused for the purpose of staging a "clandestine small group" and "conspiratorial". Here are some of the digital habits that are, in this case, exploited as so many “proofs” of the existence of a criminal project12: – the use of applications such as Signal, WhatsApp, Wire, Silence or ProtonMail to encrypt its communications; – the use of tools to protect your privacy on the Internet such as a VPN, Tor or Tails; – protecting ourselves against the exploitation of our personal data by GAFAM via services such as /e/OS, LineageOS, F-Droid; – encryption of digital media; – the organization and participation in digital hygiene training sessions; – the mere possession of technical documentation. While digital technology has multiplied state surveillance capacities13, we denounce the fact that the technologies that allow everyone to restore a political balance that is more fragile than ever are associated with criminal behavior at large scale.