French Police Report On Paris Attacks Shows No Evidence Of Encryption… So NY Times Invents Evidence Itself https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160321/00392533965/french-police-report-paris-attacks-shows-no-evidence-encryption-so-ny-times-invents-evidence-itself.shtml (via Instapundit)
But, amazingly, the NY Times takes evidence of a lack of encryption… to mean there must be encryption:
According to the police report and interviews with officials, none of the attackers’ emails or other electronic communications have been found, prompting the authorities to conclude that the group used encryption. What kind of encryption remains unknown, and is among the details that Mr. Abdeslam’s capture could help reveal.
But… that’s not how encryption works. If they’re using encrypted emails, the emails don’t disappear. You still can see that they exist, and the metadata of who sent messages to whom remains. It’s just that you can’t read the contents of the emails. This is bogeyman thinking about encryption, where people think it does something it doesn’t actually do. Sure, it’s possible that the attackers used some sort of secretive way to communicate, but then the issue isn’t encryption, but rather that they figured out how to hide the method by which they communicated. Or, you know, they just talked about stuff in person.