Talk:EncroChat

List Jurre as an journalist, not as a hacker
I posted a tweet that is referenced, I'm a journalist for OCCRP, not sure what my employer has to do with it as this was done on my own time and in addition, in the source it's not listed as i'm OCCRP affiliated.. But then, I am listed as an OCCRP affiliated hacker in this page, what the heck? I don't know what that means to be an "affiliate", i'm staff.

I propose to replace "OCCRP-affiliated hacker" with journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrWhax (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Joint Franco-Dutch investigation
Article currently states that UK began efforts to infiltrate Encrochat, then France and the Netherlands joined later. That's actually the reverse: France began investigating EncroChat in 2017, then opened a case against the Netherlands at Eurojust in 2019. The joint task force was then set up and the network infiltrated. UK was not involved in the JIT or infiltration, it was a recipient of intelligence gathered by the JIT. See: Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your source does not back that up and others clearly say information to the contrary. Why is a JIT necessarily to participate in a multi-national investigation? Especially when the advising agency's role is initially technical or intelligence oriented in nature - as is what is said by the National Crime Agency? Please provide the sources that falsify that information and be clear when describing such limitations. Mjsa (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your source does not back that up - The source explicitly states it! It couldn't really state it any more clearly.The JIT was set up by Europol and only consisted of French and Dutch law enforcement. Europol explicitly state that the UK did not participate in the JIT, but were merely recipients of intel. This was a Europol investigation, not a UK pol investigation. Your question really doesn't make sense. Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It does not. This amounts to a logical leap and completely misunderstands the use of Joint Investigation Teams in law enforcement. A JIT is one of many tools for certain situations - it not a tool for law enforcement bodies providing technical assistance to each other. Both the EU and College of Policing have clear guidance on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsa (talk • contribs) 09:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Misread source
Article asserts that UK launched Operation Venetic in 2016; however France began the investigation in 2017 (see source in section above). Op Venetic was launched in 2020. The silicon.co.uk source has been misread; it states "Two months ago this collaboration resulted in partners in France and the Netherlands infiltrating the platform. The data harvested was shared via Europol. Unbeknown to users the NCA and the police have been monitoring their every move since then under Operation Venetic – the UK law enforcement response " Op Venetic was a response to the shared intel. The NCA also gild the lily somewhat by inferring they infiltrated the network, but they actually say they "created the technology and specialist data exploitation capabilities required to process" the intel passed to them by the Franco-Dutch JIT. It's fancy language, but might be nothing more than a searchable database. Neil S. Walker (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I just went through and re-worded those sections, however your reversion overrode those changes and inserted the "dubious" tags instead - I assume someone just conflated Venetic with the with the start of developments in 2016. Mjsa (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * R.e. On clarity of the situation: You won't get perfect answers from anyone at this stage - remember there are prosecutions which are the priority for everyone in law enforcement. They do not want their evidence thrown out on the basis of comments in the media. R.e. Your comment on: "It's fancy language, but might be nothing more than a searchable database" - I really don't know for an off-the-shelf searchable database solution that can take unstructured text and images, and infer locations and individuals from them. Mjsa (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Elephant in the room: "Two months ago this collaboration resulted in partners in France and the Netherlands infiltrating the platform. The data harvested was shared via Europol. Unbeknown to users the NCA and the police have been monitoring their every move since then under Operation Venetic – the UK law enforcement response " France and Netherlands jointly infiltrate the network. Harvest data. Pass intel to NCA via Europol. Quite straightforward, yet the article asserts that NCA launched the op in 2016, infiltrated network, and then France and Netherlands joined recently... Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Again - this is a misunderstanding. Different legal processes are required for different types of intervention in a case. Not receiving intelligence does not mean you are not providing support. The NCA and other outlets have been clear they provided support. Indeed a JIT could be prejudicial to prosecutions so it likely makes sense to use the Europol avenue for reaping the rewards afterwards. Therefore this media article does not back up your claim either. Mjsa (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I didn't choose that source, it is the one that you are relying on to put the UK response before the JIT investigation! And the Europol source in the above section is far more reliable than any news outlet. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear here - I have not disputed any of the sources here, you did. What I am disputing is what you've inferred from those sources. What is stated in articles must be an accurate reflection of the literature. Your fundamental premise in both these sections appears to be you invoking that a JIT is the sole tool for law enforcement co-operation and neglecting the other evidence of law enforcement operation. Can you back this up please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsa (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Number of criminal users
To be fair, they both probably didn't exactly go looking for non-offending users, and the units were seemingly marketed towards those likely to be offenders. Not sure if I should add a note about source bias and unreliability in past for politically-charged sources. Basic math is that if 60K users were all gangs, then why so few prosecutions? 47.221.236.73 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * @47.221.236.73 because basic math doesn't account for small fishes in the big sea, or maybe users that weren't identifiable AND provably criminal. 89.8.8.63 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

more update info
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252499373/UK-accused-of-damaging-confidence-by-disclosing-EncroChat-collaboration

even more material

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67051150 e.g. it suggests the operation endures and rather that 16 firearms, 49 have been seized so far.

End-to-end encryption compromised?
Here's some more information about police operations, as reported by the BBC. Maybe this could be included in the article? I assume the police didn't actually crack end-to-end encryption when carrying out their operations, but this point is not particularly clear in the article. Perhaps someone with a knowledge of the subject could clarify the point. Thanks, MidnightBlue   (Talk)  12:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)