Thats why it would have to be a closed system with controlled transmissions rather than omnidirectional radio transmissions.

I don’t disagree with that but the article is talking about what arguments are permissible in a court room which is a little different. Same as using tools to commit a crime. It’s not illegal to own or use tools but when used in commission of a crime, this can be a factor in proving elements of a crime that require proof of intention or malice.

This specific thread is about criminality of encryption.

No lmao. How did you get that from all the talk about radio transmission and encryption?

Closed systems don’t require encryption.

You can actually. It just wouldn’t be encrypted.

Everyone? You mean the 10 people that read this thread?

How does covering up a crime not make it worse when it allows you to get away and commit more crime?

Please tell me banking didnt exist before radio transmission.

It’s definitely not integral. You could just control the connection points. Ie, all your software tools on intranet and wired connection only. Any data can be decrypted.

I think it’s contextual. It is definitely relevant to bring into a criminal case that criminals made attempts to obstruct gathering of evidence in commission of the crime. It’s no different than shredding or burning paper files. Evidence of criminals taking steps to hide the criminal activity is how you prove that a transgression is willful rather than negligent. That matters in cases like murder.

Encryption is also criminal in some contexts, like encrypted radio broadcasts on frequencies for public use.

It definitely belongs as a talking point in a courtroom, imo.