That's funny because the French government is accusing him of:
- Fourniture de prestations de cryptologie
visant à assurer des fonctions de
confidentialité sans déclaration conforme,
Providing cryptography services with
an eye to ensure confidentiality
features without a compliance
declaration. (Translation mine.)
- Fourniture d'un moyen de cryptologie
n'assurant pas exclusivement des
fonctions d'authentification ou de
contrôle d'intégrité sans déclaration
préalable,
Providing a cryptographic method
non-exclusively ensuring authentication
and integrity features w/o prior
declaration. (Translation mine.)
- Importation d'un moyen de cryptologie
n'assurant pas exclusivement des
fonctions d'authentification ou de
contrôle d'intégrité sans déclaration
préalable.
Same, but regarding import controls.
The first item implies that you're not allowed to provide others with software/services that provides confidentiality protection without registration -- without a statement that you comply with legal requirements!
Presumably the compliance declaration is subject to prosecution for perjury or similar charges if they can twist the legal requirements after your registration.
The second item implies that you're not allowed to provide others even with something as innocuous as authentication and integrity protection software/services without first registering your intent to do so!!
In the context of the cryptowars of the 90s, and in the context of web browsers, all of this is just pure nonsense.
Where are the prosecutions of Mozilla, Google, and Apple (and Brave, and Opera, and...) for distributing browsers which all provide confidentiality services? Or did they all get approval from the French government?
2. A big reason why he got arrested is because there was evidence of illegal activity happening, and authorities submitted request for information, and he refused. Companies like Meta will 100% comply with legal requests for information about illegal activity on their platform.
3. You cannot have a decentralized system that "gives the power to the people" if you still have central servers where information is stored or goes through.
Export controls on crypto are one thing, and easily avoided by using open source (since there is an exemption for open source). But import controls are much more obnoxious and harder to deal with.
Presumably the compliance declaration is subject to prosecution for perjury or similar charges if they can twist the legal requirements after your registration.
The second item implies that you're not allowed to provide others even with something as innocuous as authentication and integrity protection software/services without first registering your intent to do so!!
In the context of the cryptowars of the 90s, and in the context of web browsers, all of this is just pure nonsense.
Where are the prosecutions of Mozilla, Google, and Apple (and Brave, and Opera, and...) for distributing browsers which all provide confidentiality services? Or did they all get approval from the French government?