Perhaps an important note is from a Vice article that I found: “..encrypted messaging programs which route messages through the firm's own servers”. If the messages are encrypted on the device then why would you need to send them via the firm’s servers? Maybe it prevents traffic monitoring or something? Sounds more like copy and decrypt.
Also a phone which is obviously only for criminal use does not seem smart - for the same price one could buy a new phone, sim, and popular encryption apps every month. Although a “care-free” solution for criminals is probably appealing.
Apparently they used the Signal protocol so the cops put a RAT on the actual phones.
As to why this particular service was used? Well, criminals aren’t known for being too bright. This offered a one-stop-shop for “security”.
refs: https://apnews.com/article/encrypted-phones-crime-encrochat-... https://archive.is/w8q81
Unfortunately, it seems that encryption alone is a signal to law enforcement that criminals are there.
Resisting surveillance is the new resisting arrest - and is something that LEO lust to criminalize.
> In a statement on Tuesday, Europol offered its first overview of the results of the takedown, which it said had "sent shockwaves across organised crime groups in Europe and beyond".
It's a followup article/press release.
