“Being labeled a terrorist… simply for downloading a messaging app?”
This is no longer satire. It’s the legal reality of today’s Turkey.
In a country where the principle of legality has been suspended -as repeatedly noted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)- being criminalized for an app you download or a message you send has become dangerously ordinary.
As recently reported, Turkey’s Constitutional Court (AYM) ruled that using the encrypted messaging app Signal may constitute evidence of “organizational communication” in a terrorism-related case.
(See: https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/anayasa-mahkemesi-signal-kullanmak-orgutsel-iletisimin-delili-olabilir-2458053 )
According to the Court, the combination of Signal messages and money transfer records amounted to a “strong suspicion of crime.” This ruling came despite the landmark Yalçınkaya v. Turkey decision by the ECtHR, which explicitly condemned such arbitrary criminalization.
(See: ECtHR Ruling – Yalçınkaya)
Naturally, this has sparked widespread concern:
Is Signal next? Will WhatsApp users be targeted tomorrow?
But this is not just about one court ruling. It’s a critical moment -a turning point- for personal rights, privacy, freedom of communication, and the rule of law in Turkey.
Is Using a Messaging App Now a Crime?
In any legal system based on the rule of law, downloading or using a messaging app is not a crime. A communication tool is just that: a tool. Criminality stems from action, not from the platform used.
In democratic legal orders, access to or use of encrypted apps does not constitute a crime unless accompanied by criminal content, proven intent, and a specific unlawful act. This is a foundational legal norm; both for state justice and individual legal security.
But in Erdoğan’s Turkey, these principles have been reversed. Especially in cases involving encrypted messaging apps, the tool itself has become the target.
Using an app -or even just having it installed- is being treated as inherently suspicious, often as the primary evidence in terrorism-related charges.
This is not only a threat to the accused; it’s a threat to all of us. When tools become evidence, objectivity gives way to arbitrariness.
The ByLock Case: A Cautionary Tale
The ByLock trials offer a sobering precedent. Thousands were imprisoned in Turkey simply for having the ByLock app on their phones; an app allegedly used by members of the Gülen movement.
(See: https://www.kadirgundogan.av.tr/silahli-teror-orgutu-uyeligi-bylock-ile-ilgili-yargitay-ceza-genel-kurulu-karari )
Yet the ECtHR’s Yalçınkaya decision found Turkey in violation of basic rights -especially freedom of communication and legal certainty– for relying on the use of such apps as proof of guilt. (See. YÜKSEL YALÇINKAYA/Türkiye CASE: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-228393%22]} )
This ruling confirms what we already knew: having a messaging app on your phone is not proof of crime. There must be criminal content, context, intent, and clear evidence of an unlawful act. Otherwise, you violate not only legal principles, but also the very presumption of innocence.
And today, with Signal, the same logic, the same injustice, is repeating.
Encryption, Privacy & Rights: The Global Perspective
In most democratic countries, encrypted communication is not just tolerated, it’s protected. End-to-end encryption is a technical feature that allows only the sender and receiver to view the content of messages. Governments, companies, or third parties cannot access the data.
Europe still values encrypted communication, despite ongoing debates. However, recent EU efforts to regulate or access encrypted data -allegedly for security purposes- have drawn serious backlash. Critics argue these proposals risk creating a digital surveillance state.
(See: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/the-end-of-encryption-as-we-know-it )
And they are right. Features like “backdoors” or client-side scanning would undermine the very essence of encryption… They would compromise not only individual privacy, but democratic freedoms and societal safety.
(See: https://eu.ci/eu-chat-control-regulation/ )
Encryption is not a crime. It is a tool of safety, of freedom of expression, and civil liberties. Entrusting its control to authoritarian systems is not only dangerous; it’s an assault on human dignity.
Why Is Signal Being Treated as Evidence? A Legal Vacuum and a Political Agenda
What we are seeing in Turkey is not the result of solid legal reasoning — but of ideological and political manipulation… The logic is clear:
Encrypted communication → suspicion → guilt by association → organizational membership.
But in law, evidence must be based on concrete actions and context.
-Just having an app is not evidence.
-The content of communication, the intent, and external acts matter.
-Even then, such data must be lawfully obtained and used within established rules of evidence.
In the ByLock cases, courts violated these principles, and thousands paid the price.
(See: TBB Journal, “FETÖ Trials in Light of the Right to Liberty” – Prof. Tolga Şirin)
Now, with Signal, history risks repeating itself.
Where Is the Rule of Law Going?
As a former judge and a long-time human rights lawyer, I must ask:
If simply using a communication app can lead to arrest or imprisonment, what is left of law, justice, and trust in this country?
Encrypted messaging is not a crime in Europe or the U.S.; it is a symbol of privacy and liberty. While policy debates continue in some nations, no democratic system equates “app usage” with “criminal behavior.”
Yes, there are pressures; attempts to weaken encryption “for public safety.”
(See: https://www.techpolicy.press/policy-directions-on-encrypted-messaging-and-extreme-speech/ )
But those discussions acknowledge the risk to civil liberties. In Turkey, however, we are past the discussion stage. We are living in the criminalization of privacy itself.
A Moral and Human Appeal
During my judicial and legal career, I have seen countless innocent lives ruined; not by crimes, but by arbitrary accusations. I’ve seen the fear, the despair, the disbelief in their eyes.
And now, this system is creating crimes where none exist… Not prosecuting criminal acts, but manufacturing guilt from mere association, from belief, from downloading an app.
As a human rights defender, I say this clearly: This is wrong. This is illegal. This is inhumane.
Accessing encrypted communication -whether Signal, Telegram, or any other- is a fundamental right in the digital age. Defending this right is defending freedom, democracy, and human dignity.
What Must Be Done? Five Urgent Steps Forward
1.Reaffirm Rule of Law Standards: Guilt must be based on specific acts and evidence — not on app usage. Presumption of innocence must be protected at all costs.
2.Clarify Evidentiary Rules: In cases involving encrypted communication, content and context must guide decisions; not speculation or political pressure.
3.Ensure Transparency and Judicial Independence: Especially in terrorism cases, investigation and prosecution must respect due process, with accessible and reviewable evidence.
4. Protect Freedom of Communication and Privacy: Encryption protects all citizens, not just the accused. It is essential for free speech, press freedom, religious expression, and personal security.
5. Unite the Legal Community and Civil Society: Only a collective stance by lawyers, academics, and rights defenders can stop the erosion of liberties and restore judicial integrity.
Final Word: Silence Is Complicity
If simply saying “I use Signal” is enough for a terror accusation, then what we have is not law; it is oppression. It is injustice. It is collective punishment.
If we do not speak out today, tomorrow a different app, a new tool, a broader group may be labeled criminal… So don’t stay silent. Don’t look away. Don’t normalize it. Speak. Resist. Demand justice.
Because justice doesn’t begin in court; it begins in conscience.
One last question to all defenders of law, rights, and liberty:
Can such a vision of justice, such an interpretation of democracy, truly be accepted?
A Closing Call
This is a call to conscience… Encrypted communication is not a crime.
The guilty must be identified by what they do, not by what they use.
In this land -regardless of belief, ideology, or political stance- we must stand for freedom, justice, and human dignity.
Don’t be silent. Don’t be complicit. Defend your rights. Because when justice is denied to one, it is denied to all.
December 3, 2025
Ramazan Faruk Güzel
Former Judge, Human Rights Defender
**
