Joseph Cox

The phones start popping up in Europe, and that's when broadly sort of the Swedish police get involved, and then also the Dutch. They are the two main European agencies that first come forward, because that's simply where the phones are ending up. And obviously the AFP doesn't really have jurisdiction. over Sweden or the Netherlands.

And the FBI, although they are reading the messages by this point, they're not in English, for a start. And the FBI can't really go over and start arresting people in the Netherlands, nor should they. So they decide to share some of the intelligence with... their Swedish and their Dutch counterparts.

And the FBI, although they are reading the messages by this point, they're not in English, for a start. And the FBI can't really go over and start arresting people in the Netherlands, nor should they. So they decide to share some of the intelligence with... their Swedish and their Dutch counterparts.

And it starts to mirror what's going on in Australia with, you know, more intelligence gathering and the rest here and the rest there. But it's still very much under wraps, even though more and more cops are being looped in.

And it starts to mirror what's going on in Australia with, you know, more intelligence gathering and the rest here and the rest there. But it's still very much under wraps, even though more and more cops are being looped in.

At this point, I've read, I think, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Anon messages and messages from other providers as well. And what emerges through reading those is that a lot of people who sell these encrypted phones in a particular market or territory, they treat it like having a drug territory. Like in the same way that somebody may be the wholesale distributor for...

At this point, I've read, I think, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Anon messages and messages from other providers as well. And what emerges through reading those is that a lot of people who sell these encrypted phones in a particular market or territory, they treat it like having a drug territory. Like in the same way that somebody may be the wholesale distributor for...

you know, a certain part of Sweden or maybe Antwerp or something like that, these phone dealers treat their product in the same sort of way.

you know, a certain part of Sweden or maybe Antwerp or something like that, these phone dealers treat their product in the same sort of way.

Yeah, I think this is something that a lot of people reading the book are going to have an issue with, basically. I think that's the only way to put it, which is like, why is this US law enforcement agency intercepting and reading messages from all over the world? And the best answer I have is that, well, there's two.

Yeah, I think this is something that a lot of people reading the book are going to have an issue with, basically. I think that's the only way to put it, which is like, why is this US law enforcement agency intercepting and reading messages from all over the world? And the best answer I have is that, well, there's two.

There's sort of the legal one, which is that, you know, the Fourth Amendment only protects people on American soil, right? Where you have to get a search and seizure warrant to go through communications or a wiretap order or whatever, right? Not to get too technical. The FBI does not need that for overseas.

There's sort of the legal one, which is that, you know, the Fourth Amendment only protects people on American soil, right? Where you have to get a search and seizure warrant to go through communications or a wiretap order or whatever, right? Not to get too technical. The FBI does not need that for overseas.

And that's basically sort of the loophole that they used where they were able to go through all of this data. The second one is like sort of how they see themselves and maybe how they see their ethical obligation as well. But the prosecutors I've spoken to who were involved in this case, they just simply see this as a good thing.

And that's basically sort of the loophole that they used where they were able to go through all of this data. The second one is like sort of how they see themselves and maybe how they see their ethical obligation as well. But the prosecutors I've spoken to who were involved in this case, they just simply see this as a good thing.

And they want to go out and they want to shut down all of these criminal gangs. They want to intercept them. I think that there are valid questions about national sovereignty and all of that sort of thing. But that is what the FBI... They set out to wiretap the world, essentially, and they were very, very successful at it.

And they want to go out and they want to shut down all of these criminal gangs. They want to intercept them. I think that there are valid questions about national sovereignty and all of that sort of thing. But that is what the FBI... They set out to wiretap the world, essentially, and they were very, very successful at it.

I mean, it... It's partly they're doing it because they can. They can monitor these communications. Yes, they can't go arrest people themselves, but then they can provide that intelligence to foreign partners. I mean, it's sort of an overused cliche at this point, the idea of America being the world police or whatever. But there is...

I mean, it... It's partly they're doing it because they can. They can monitor these communications. Yes, they can't go arrest people themselves, but then they can provide that intelligence to foreign partners. I mean, it's sort of an overused cliche at this point, the idea of America being the world police or whatever. But there is...

There's an element of that stereotype here in that the FBI went out and they collect all these messages all around the world, even though they couldn't monitor what was going on in America. This is sort of the future of policing that we're in now. And there wasn't really a debate about it.