I’m not quite sure which case, I think it was about activists (not sure tho), but these fact were indeed used as an argument to support the idea that they were terrorists, because they’re trying to hide something
“They indicted 7 people for Terrorism last year, in part because they encrypted their disks, used tail as their OS and signal for communication.” would work maybe.
They indicted 7 people for Terrorism last year because they encrypted their disks, used tail as their OS and signal for communication.
You’re saying France convicted people for terrorism purely because they used encryption? That’s a bold claim. What’s your source?
It’s in French : https://www.laquadrature.net/2023/06/05/affaire-du-8-decembre-le-chiffrement-des-communications-assimile-a-un-comportement-terroriste/
I’m not quite sure which case, I think it was about activists (not sure tho), but these fact were indeed used as an argument to support the idea that they were terrorists, because they’re trying to hide something
That’s a fucked up legal system…
The fact that you care about privacy means that you are hiding something which means that you are now a terrorist.
That sort of broken logic can apply to almost anything
Yep.
No, that wasn’t the “reason” like you want to make it sound by using because without any modifier like “also”.
How would adding “also” fit in my sentence. I tried but couldn’t.
“They indicted 7 people for Terrorism last year, in part because they encrypted their disks, used tail as their OS and signal for communication.” would work maybe.
“also because”?
English isn’t my native language but still it feels very off. Is it even correct ?
“Correct” as in an allowed use? Yes.