Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

whispersystems.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 258 posts

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#61

Post by valarauca1 »

frandroid wrote: post #54
TeMPOraL wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain how people are imagining protocols that do not to create / store metadata? This seems like something fundamentally impossible on a packet-switched network. After all, the data has a source and a destination, and goes through the infrastructure that's tappable (and in big part already tapped) by a state-level actor. About the only thing that comes to my mind would be a digital equivalent to broadca…

A blockchain, of sorts...

Blockchains can do this. But they create relatively absurd systems of who can/can't send messages based on how much they've mined. Block chains are HORRIBLE for encrypted messaging. Since your message is PERMANENTLY part of the chain. So if a encryption is broken, or your password gets leaked. ANYONE can read your messages.

In most cases a DHT is far simpler. But naturally some nodes can be evil and log metadata. This is just a risk, but it also exists in block chains. Furthermore DHT's are lower latency then block-chains.

Blockchains aren't a magic fix all solution for network consistency/privacy models. Outside of currency transactions it is a horrible distributed system model.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#62

Post by tomjen3 »

In the future please don't blank out the officer's email address, especially when they (as explained in the reply) overstep their bounds in terms of what they are allowed to request, thus essentially abusing their position and the trust we as citizens have provided to them.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#63

Post by Esau »

StavrosK wrote: post #15
zeveb wrote: post #5

It'd be better, of course, if we didn't rely on Signal not storing all that metadata and instead used a protocol which made it impossible for anyone to be in a position to choose whether or not to store it. Unfortunately, the protocols that enable truly traffic–analysis-resistant messaging (I believe the Pynchon Gate[1] is currently the best-of-breed) tend to have increased latency and consume greatly-increased bandw…

Yeah, but I'm kind of tired of having to fight my own government every step of the way. I'd prefer a political solution at this point.

There is too much fear, and too many people trying to take advantage of that fear, for there to be a political solution.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#64

Post by TeMPOraL »

frandroid wrote: post #54
TeMPOraL wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain how people are imagining protocols that do not to create / store metadata? This seems like something fundamentally impossible on a packet-switched network. After all, the data has a source and a destination, and goes through the infrastructure that's tappable (and in big part already tapped) by a state-level actor. About the only thing that comes to my mind would be a digital equivalent to broadca…

A blockchain, of sorts...

Sorta, but not. The only similarity would be that you download global state. But you could continously throw that state away if you don't need archiving of messages / long history.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#65

Post by marketanarchist »

fweespeech wrote: post #45
zeveb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political solutions change as politics change: I think it's better to be mathematically secure than politically secure, since the one is forever and the other only sure until the next election.

They can just make it illegal to own a mathematically secure piece of software without a license.

That would backfire economically and politically I think, especially long term. Let them ban it if they are so foolish.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#66

Post by marketanarchist »

zeveb wrote: post #36
StavrosK wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but I'm kind of tired of having to fight my own government every step of the way. I'd prefer a political solution at this point.

Political solutions change as politics change: I think it's better to be mathematically secure than politically secure, since the one is forever and the other only sure until the next election.

Spot on, that's the idea behind bitcoin as well.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#67

Post by codezero »

tomjen3 wrote: post #62

In the future please don't blank out the officer's email address, especially when they (as explained in the reply) overstep their bounds in terms of what they are allowed to request, thus essentially abusing their position and the trust we as citizens have provided to them.

The redacted letter was provided by the court, so I assume that they weren't willing to disclose it and revealing it would be a violation of the court order.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#69

Post by zigzigzag »

Bartweiss wrote: post #48
StavrosK wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but I'm kind of tired of having to fight my own government every step of the way. I'd prefer a political solution at this point.

To me, the big question is what a trustworthy political solution would look like. I see this desire raised a lot, in contexts from HN to Valley-mocking pieces on how encryption is no substitute for advocacy. I completely understand the instinct, but every incarnation of it seems to struggle with the same question. Namely: how do you know when you've won? Restrictions against collecting data on US citizens didn't prod…

Genuine accountability. Rules that are enforced against the elites.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#70

Post by the_watcher »

fweespeech wrote: post #45
zeveb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political solutions change as politics change: I think it's better to be mathematically secure than politically secure, since the one is forever and the other only sure until the next election.

They can just make it illegal to own a mathematically secure piece of software without a license.

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, and something like this (where millions would instantly be in violation) would absolutely, 100% end up in front of the Supreme Court.
Post reply on HN