Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#171

Post by cloudjacker » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 10:13 PM UTC

h4nkoslo wrote: post #164

dragonwriter wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When the Securities Exchange Commission decides that something is a security, it retroactively applies the civil and criminal compliance back to 1934 because it was always a security. That's not a retroactive application of the law. If they are correct in their interpretation of the law, it was already the law. If they are incorrect, the courts will not allow it (whether the enforcement concerns acts before or afte…

The issue is that they, and other administrative organs, often change their interpretation of what the law "has always meant". Particularly irksome when they issue private letters with differing interpretations and then override all of them with subsequent administrative rulings. The ATF is particularly notorious for this.

Just a note, there is a possibility that the person you replied to is comfortable with circular logic about why the behavior is not controversial under the supposition that "the law is the law." This may be a semantical discussion about why it is not "retroactive" in a legally damning sense, despite the similarities of the distinct ability to civilly and criminally sanction somebody for something they did in the past. Long before representatives of the government decided that person's prior actions would fall under their jurisdiction.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#172

Post by codedokode » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 10:27 PM UTC

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.

You cannot protect your privacy with just mathematics. It won't help against government tracking your cell phone location or looking into your bank account.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#173

Post by CraftThatBlock » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 10:29 PM UTC

gagabity wrote: post #127

I really hate that every messaging app nowadays requires a phone number to use, sure it makes some things easier but its very difficult to get a phone number anonymously. They should include an email signup option or even better just a username/password option although that would cause some issues with spammers, which can probably be mitigated in other more creative ways.

The "privacy" apps nowadays (Signal for instance) is morw about security than anonymity.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#174

Post by CraftThatBlock » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 10:31 PM UTC

gagabity wrote: post #127

I really hate that every messaging app nowadays requires a phone number to use, sure it makes some things easier but its very difficult to get a phone number anonymously. They should include an email signup option or even better just a username/password option although that would cause some issues with spammers, which can probably be mitigated in other more creative ways.

Apps that claim "privacy" only actually protect the security, not anonymity of their users.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#175

Post by aabaker99 » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 10:36 PM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #131

ryandrake wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never win. To use a controversial example: Who thinks abortion rights people "won" with Roe v Wade? Their opponents have been relentlessly chipping away at that "victory" ever since. When you make something a political issue, you are guaranteeing that it cannot be won with any kind of finality.

> Their opponents have been relentlessly chipping away at that "victory" ever since. There, the "opponents" are a subset of society that have a legitimate right to not to agree with the decision and they are acting within the public framework of our governance to overturn a decision. Here, the "opponents" of strict privacy rights are spooks and crooks in government and international corporations. It is entirely a dif…

Enacting laws under the guise of trying to improve women's health with the effect of closing abortion clinics is only surface level "acting within the public framework of our governance". These laws are ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I claim the legislators and their supporters knew this before they enacted the laws. Unfortunately they also know that it will take the Supreme Court time to make this ruling. And in that time the state laws will act to close many abortion clinics. It doesn't seem very legitimate to me.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#176

Post by Lagged2Death » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 10:38 PM UTC

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.

Political solutions change as politics change...

"Mathematical security" can be politically banned, is banned in many parts of the world. You only have the option to use mathematical security because other people have been doing the politics for you.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#177

Post by faktorialas » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 11:17 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #120

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.

You want the government to give up the right to access communications that it has the ability to access? You're talking about a fundamental weakening of government greater than has ever been attempted. Governments have always had the power to access your mail and papers and such, the only changes over time is the legal hurdles they must use to exercise that power.

The problem is, I don't think you can say that it's a form of a giving up, or a fundemental weakening of power.

We are creating absurd amounts of information compared to before. Just because US Gov could access the measly amount of info that was generated before doesn't mean that they should be able to access the crazy amounts created now. It is from a very narrow perspective that anyone can call this a "fundemental weakening of government". Compared to before the internet, they're still drowning in insane amounts of data.

We can also add that if they can access some things, they will manipulate their way into accessing more things. Which means that reducing privacy and security is just optimization for them. And that will have costs beyond the US Government's own doing.

Sure, the current law climate seems to be that they can access it. But that climate was created with pushes from LE agencies and ignorant politicians. You may argue that that has always been the case, but clearly there's increasing demand for this to be decided democratically. So US Gov "giving up" this "right" might be the thing that democracy wants.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#178

Post by faktorialas » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 11:32 PM UTC

CaptSpify wrote: post #10

woah wrote: post #3

FYI, Signal has access to all metadata about messages and calls (but not the content of course). They claim not to store it and I believe them for now but someone else could be storing it. They don't have access to group message membership directly. A group appears as a bunch of one to one messages between the participants, so they might still be able to infer it.

> FYI, Signal has access to all metadata about messages and calls source for this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)

Check the metadata portion. One thing to note, this isn't surprising at all. All of the centralized IM servers can do this and, usually more. The alternatives that try to minimize or obfuscate metadata are far from market-ready.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#179

Post by faktorialas » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 11:35 PM UTC

ejcx wrote: post #27

That's very neat and really glad to see privacy enhancing technologies working. I'm curious what type of metadata Facebook would have from the signal integrations with Whatsapp and Messenger. Is there more, less, or same? Has anyone looked in to this?

Significantly more; OWS in this blog post are claiming to keep the very bare minimum.

Whatsapp and Facebook, meanwhile, are sharing data to improve ads - surely they share much more than that with LE.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#180

Post by lkjhgfdsa57 » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 11:38 PM UTC

eatbitseveryday wrote: post #145

wyager wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freenet ... which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately. Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source?

>> Freenet ... which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately. > Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source? Hm, I admit fault, hastily writing the above reply. I do not have sources for actual convictions, so what I wrote is not validated. s/has led to/may risk/ Source[1] that I read prior to my comment, which is under the thread[2] "Suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives".…

Redacted case notes from a Freeneter acting as an expert witness on a case: https://asksteved.com/freenet-case/case-redacted.pdf