zlacker

I don't know that it's that simple. Further down that section (1920) in reference [1] reads

"(3) A dedicated encrypted criminal communication device does not include-- (a) a device if-- (i) the device has been designed, modified or equipped with software or security features, and (ii) a reasonable person would consider the software or security features have been applied for a primary purpose other than facilitating communication between persons involved in criminal activity to defeat law enforcement detection,"

It's not automatic: depending on what a reasonable person thinks and the definition of criminal activity.

>>femto+(OP)
> applied for a primary purpose other than facilitating communication between persons involved in criminal activity to defeat law enforcement detection

Does the jurisdiction matter? For example, if an activist was using a device to do things in another country that would be legal in Australia but were crimes in the other country.

>>dkarl+a1
I doubt a judge would interpret the law that way.

>>femto+(OP)
I mean, in my country, it's increasingly unclear to me whether things like "loudly criticizing the executive branch" are now considered criminal. Recent executive branch statements on this issue seem to indicate that they may consider some critics criminal just for being critics. But it's hard to be sure. And so far, every critic they've threatened to arrest has also been accused of committing other crimes.

So "the government only considers a duress PIN illegal if it is used to facilitate crime" seems like a potentially tricky standard to apply.

>>ekidd+Va
I love how this statement could apply to so many different countries right now!

>>femto+(OP)
> depending on what a reasonable person thinks

But this is just legal fiction, so not a barrier to "automatic"