An0m: lawyers challenge encrypted messaging app used by AFP in global crime sting

The legality of the encrypted app An0m, which Australian federal police used to run a global crime sting, is being challenged in the courts a year after its highly publicised unveiling.

In the 12 months since the AFP and FBI let the world know they were behind an encrypted phone known as An0m, it has led to 340 alleged offenders being charged in Australia with 1,011 offences. The number of arrests globally is over 1,000.

It was in this app that law enforcement agencies were able to intercept 19.7m messages between 2018 and 2021 that led to the hundreds of arrests globally, as part of what the AFP dubbed Operation Ironside.

Since the initial fanfare from the AFP and FBI, questions have been raised about the legal grounds on which the messages were intercepted and the warrants used.

This has led to the legality being challenged directly in Australian courts, as the cases of those arrested as part of Operation Ironside begin to get under way.

A lawyer acting for one of those arrested told a court in Sydney in June that up to 30 people who were charged based on messages in the app were set to question experts about how the messages were stored and then provided to the AFP. Those matters will be heard in a Sydney local court in September.

In South Australia, Michael Abbott QC, acting for one of two men before the SA supreme court, reportedly alleged the operation was illegal.

According to Vice, which has reportedly obtained the source code for the app, law enforcement were able to intercept every single message over the app via a blind carbon copy function that passed on every message sent over the app to another account.

Guardian Australia understands it is expected lawyers will question whether the right warrants were obtained for the operation. Warrants were obtained under the Surveillance Devices Act, but lawyers believe the warrants potentially should have been obtained under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.

The Law Council of Australia president, Tass Liveris, said while the council supports disrupting organised crime and recognises the need to modernise investigatory functions, it is important there are appropriate oversight mechanisms and legislative checks on how electronic surveillance is undertaken by law enforcement.

An AFP spokesperson said it would not be appropriate to comment while the matter is before the courts.