So, do I understand correctly that they are not cracking down on him for operating an e2e encrypted app that facilitates all those things (CP, organised crime, etc.) (because as many have already argued in comments in previous threads, Telegram is only E2EE in a very narrow use-case, and most likely the comms in question were not encrypted), but cracking down on him for not giving the authorities access to those unencrypted comms that they've requested, which is seen as facilitation of those things (CP, organised crime, etc.)?
In other words, Signal is in the clear, because it's E2EE for all purposes and the operators wouldn't have the ability (via reasonable means) to access the data in the first place?
In other words, Signal is in the clear, because it's E2EE for all purposes and the operators wouldn't have the ability (via reasonable means) to access the data in the first place?