I'm still unclear from the article what the actual alleged crime is here? They sold a product that was not illegal to perform a function (encrypted communication) that is not (yet) illegal but it is alleged it was used to arrange illegal activity by a third party?
Ford's CEO isn't arrested when a mustang is used as a getaway car in a bank robbery, even though speed and acceleration are features they sell the product on that are clearly useful to an escaping bank robber. McDonald's CEO isn't arrested when a cartel hitman eats a Big Mac while waiting outside his target's house. When exactly is the line crossed? Is it when explaining how the features of the product are useful to a client who intends to engage in illegal activity?
Ford's CEO isn't arrested when a mustang is used as a getaway car in a bank robbery, even though speed and acceleration are features they sell the product on that are clearly useful to an escaping bank robber. McDonald's CEO isn't arrested when a cartel hitman eats a Big Mac while waiting outside his target's house. When exactly is the line crossed? Is it when explaining how the features of the product are useful to a client who intends to engage in illegal activity?