ByLock Contradictions: The Anatomy of the “Coincidence” Defense

There are certain cases in Turkey’s recent history that do not fade away with time; on the contrary, they expand, branch out, and generate new questions.

The debate surrounding ByLock is precisely such a case.

At first glance, it appeared to be merely a messaging application. Over the years, however, it became the focal point of a vast controversy extending from organizational communications and intelligence operations to digital security and media warfare.

Yet the issue is not simply what ByLock was.

Perhaps more importantly, it concerns the gray areas that emerge between the narratives presented by those telling the story and the facts themselves.

Particularly when examined closely, the narratives constructed around the name David Keynes reveal a picture far more complex than a conventional story of confession.

This is because there appears to be, simultaneously, a figure who knows a great deal and a defensive discourse that seeks to portray him as being outside the events.

And it is precisely here that a fundamental question emerges: Was this person truly outside the system, or was he actually at its very center?

The Timeline Discrepancy

One of the most striking points of tension in the narrative is the statement: “I first heard about ByLock in 2017.” At first glance, this appears to be an ordinary remark. However, the details provided afterward make this statement highly problematic.

The same individual goes on to describe in considerable detail: the developer of the application, server migrations, Lithuanian connections, Apple developer accounts, patterns of use within the organization, technical security claims, and even financial relationships.

Naturally, this raises the following question: How can a person possess such extensive operational knowledge about a system that he claims to have known nothing about for years?

This is not merely a technical inconsistency. It is also a fundamental challenge to the credibility of the narrative itself. If he truly knew nothing, how did he acquire such detailed information? If he did know, why claim that he first heard about it in 2017? These two narratives do not fit comfortably together.

Technical Expertise vs. Disavowal

A similar contradiction emerges regarding technical expertise. Throughout the narrative, statements such as: “I am not a technical person. I do not understand computers.” are repeatedly made. Yet shortly afterward, discussions include highly technical matters such as: IP routing, server locations, data flows, application marketplace processes, Bluetooth-based distribution, and security architectures.

The issue here is not merely the use of technical terminology. Rather, it concerns familiarity with the operational logic of technical systems. An ordinary person would simply say: “There was an application.” However, someone close to the operation of the system would know: why it was removed from app stores, why it was moved across different countries, why alternative distribution methods were used, and why an image of being “unbreakable” was cultivated.

Consequently, the defense of “I do not understand these matters” creates significant tension with the remainder of the narrative.

The "Coincidence" Defense and Trust

One of the most striking defenses concerns the issue of coincidence. According to the narrative: obtaining a Green Card, the process of settling in the United States, critical connections through certain relationships, and identity-related procedures are largely presented as developments that occurred by chance.

Yet this immediately raises another question: Were they truly coincidences?

When intelligence structures and organizational networks are examined, it is not generally customary for critical digital operations to be conducted through randomly selected individuals. Particularly within structures described as “confidential” or “sensitive,” trust is paramount. This makes the following question especially important: Why would the licensing processes of such a critical system be conducted in the name of someone who was supposedly completely detached from the organization?

The logical difficulty here is not insignificant. If the individual was genuinely excluded, why was he trusted? If he was trusted, why does he position himself entirely outside the structure? This is precisely where the narrative begins to break down.

Organizational Roles and Confidential Structures

Another noteworthy aspect of the debate concerns the issue of student-house supervision (belletmenlik). From the outside, it may appear to be nothing more than responsibility for a student residence. However, organizational analyses place such roles in a very different context. Processes of recruitment, identity formation, and loyalty-building are often shaped within precisely these environments. For this reason, the defense: “I was merely an insignificant supervisor.” does not appear particularly convincing from the perspective of organizational analysis.

Furthermore, he has previously stated that he carried out certain “special services.” If he was involved in such activities and remained within that sphere for an extended period, the claim that he was unvalued and ultimately discarded appears difficult to reconcile with the broader narrative.

Even more significant are allegations concerning connections to so-called confidential structures. The term “confidential” does not refer to ordinary discussion circles; rather, it generally denotes areas involving the security bureaucracy, the Turkish Armed Forces, law enforcement agencies, and other critical state institutions. This inevitably raises another question: Can someone alleged to have risen within such confidential structures truly have been a passive figure?

The Illusion of Absolute Security

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the ByLock debate is the perception of absolute security that was built around the application. According to certain accounts, the system was described by Atalay Candelen as: “Impossible to crack.”

Historically, statements of this nature tend to imply one of two possibilities: Either the system is genuinely strong, or people are meant to believe that it is strong. This distinction is important. In the intelligence world, one of the most effective methods is sometimes to convince people that they are secure. Consequently, a critical question emerges regarding the original intent: Was ByLock preferred because it was genuinely secure, or because people were encouraged to believe that it was secure?

The Darker Technological Network

The darker side of the allegations concerns connections among certain technology companies, digital operational networks, and specific individuals. If Social Security Institution (SGK) records, corporate relationships, and technical links are accurate, then what emerges is not merely a messaging application but a much broader digital operational network.

The same individual has linked ByLock with both the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) tape scandals and the Deniz Baykal tape scandal, as well as with private aviation company owner Faruk Bayındır. The critical issue here is the possibility of a triangular relationship among: ByLock, spyware, and conspiracy-related recordings.

Another noteworthy point is that Keynes’s SGK registration was reportedly made through Base Bilgi Teknolojileri, despite his statement: “I do not understand computers.” This company belonged not only to ByLock developer Atalay Candelen but also to Faruk Bayındır, who was associated with allegations concerning the MHP tape conspiracy and as a suspect in the Haydar Meriç murder case.

According to this perspective, David Keynes maintained direct organic ties—through employment records and business relationships—with individuals at the center of a dark technological network extending from tape conspiracies and political assassinations (Haydar Meriç) to spyware allegedly used by law enforcement against political opponents and ultimately to ByLock itself.

Motivations and Timing

At this point, an obvious question arises: Why did he feel the need to make such statements about his former associates? This is a question that requires an answer. And, of course: Why now?

Keynes’s decision to return to Turkey and surrender in 2021 may also be interpreted by some analysts as an operation aimed at “recovering information” or influencing the direction of the process. Although he acknowledged organizational membership in his statements, his portrayal of the underlying intentions behind ByLock’s development and the organization’s senior-level plans as relatively ordinary may be interpreted as an effort to benefit from effective remorse provisions and minimize potential punishment.

However, caution is necessary here. Working at the same company or belonging to the same social circle does not, by itself, constitute evidence of criminal conduct. Yet in intelligence analysis, recurring clusters of intersections matter. The same names, the same companies, the same digital projects, the same operational circles... As these patterns repeat, the number of unanswered questions increases. And that is precisely the nature of the situation under discussion.

Nevertheless, the greatest weakness in the entire narrative remains unchanged: the lack of documentary evidence.

The Absence of Documentary Verification

There are numerous names, dates, financial transactions, technical details, and operational accounts. Yet independently verifiable documentation supporting these claims remains limited. Comprehensive technical records are not publicly available. The details of FBI-related processes remain unclear. Nor can the entire chain of operations be transparently verified.

As a result, the narrative continuously oscillates between two domains: verified facts and speculation. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this case lies precisely here. When the line between truth and fiction becomes blurred, people cease purchasing reality and begin purchasing the most persuasive narrative.

At this point, before ambiguity deepens further, it is necessary for all available traces—no matter how small—within the triangle of Interpol, the FBI, and the Turkish National Police (EGM) to be thoroughly examined and cross-checked against the various narratives.

Conclusion

Today, the ByLock debate is no longer merely a debate about an application. It has evolved into a multilayered structure in which: power relations, intelligence conflicts, digital manipulation, media operations, organizational loyalty, and controlled narratives have become deeply intertwined.

The David Keynes narrative is one of the most controversial pieces of this larger puzzle. Because two different portraits exist simultaneously: a person who accidentally became involved in events, and a person who stood at the very center of them.

And the central question remains unanswered: Was ByLock truly nothing more than a secret communication application, or was it the digital showcase of a much larger struggle for power?