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

201–210 of 258 posts

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#201

Post by nickff »

burkaman wrote: post #98
zeveb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A political decision to stop sabotaging technological solutions would be a good starting point. In America, we have had those, and it hasn't helped. We have a First Amendment and a Second Amendment, and yet we have campaign-finance restrictions and gun control. Political decisions simply don't stand. It's terribly sad.

I don't think it's sad, politics are supposed to change. Obviously you can be sad at specific changes, but the idea that political decisions in general can change is a good thing.

So we went from a time when tracking or reading your communications (mail) was unconstitutional to the present, where the government can track you, listen in on you, and record all of your (electronic) communications 'just in case' they might want to check what you've been doing. Doesn't leave me inspired with optimism.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#204

Post by mcbits »

codedokode wrote: post #172
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.

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.

There are plausible solutions for both of those, or at least a clear direction to look for solutions. Unfortunately, there tends to be a critical mass that decentralized systems need to reach in terms of adoption before they become truly feasible.

Consumers aren't interested in buying a "UWB mesh hub" or some such, which wouldn't appear to do anything but drain batteries. But they might, for example, buy a car stereo or security system that uses a wireless device to deliver specific features, and which also happens to help saturate the city with a p2p mesh network.

Likewise with cryptocurrency, most people are not interested in the hassle for some intangible privacy benefit. But a lot of people might be interested in a crypto video game currency that can be easily traded, even between games. Or perhaps a currency-like mechanism to implement quotas on the mesh.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#206

Post by joncp »

module0000 wrote: post #77
joncp wrote: post #60

So, when is it going to be considered misconduct for Dana Boente and the (not so) honorable Theresa Buchanan to tack on gag orders for no good reason? How do we change that? Calling our representatives in Congress won't help. Signing petitions is laughable. I'm at a loss for how to change this as a regular citizen.

Political actors usually only respond when they are or their colleagues are harmed in some fashion. When people successfully affect politicians, they tend to do so from a grassy knoll. Summary: Oppressive bullies only respond to equal or greater oppressive bullying. edit:typo

Uh, this isn't the direction I was expecting this to go. When you start killing judges, corrupt or not, you have Mexico. I was thinking more along the lines of being disbarred and exposed to civil and criminal liability.

Gag orders should be required to have a short duration and, once lifted, be subject to an open and thorough examination, where it's the state's responsibility to prove that the gag was necessary. Failing that, the prosecutor and signing judge would be liable.

The problem is our lack of political momentum and any lever for average citizens to use to move the judicial system to reform.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#207

Post by sroussey »

rtpg wrote: post #196
Bartweiss wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I'm talking about a scale even shorter than that. Roe v Wade was a clear and unambiguous advance for abortion rights, and the battle lines are now arrayed somewhere different than they were before Roe. The fight isn't over, but it's fairly clear who holds what. I'm talking about even knowing when you've made progress. If a federal directive came through tomorrow expansively forbidding the NSA from collec…

There have been countless times where courts have told three-letter agencies to stop doing things and they have stoppped . The judiciary has the power to protect us, much more than we give credit for. There's still rule of law, and the executive mostly listens to what the judiciary tells it to do. For all its flaws, some of our institutions work pretty well compared to most places. I cannot think of another country w…

They have not stopped. And you can't prove otherwise. Which strikes at the heart of the matter.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#208

Post by gnarbarian »

gnarbarian wrote: post #182
Bartweiss wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I'm talking about a scale even shorter than that. Roe v Wade was a clear and unambiguous advance for abortion rights, and the battle lines are now arrayed somewhere different than they were before Roe. The fight isn't over, but it's fairly clear who holds what. I'm talking about even knowing when you've made progress. If a federal directive came through tomorrow expansively forbidding the NSA from collec…

Exactly. This is why the fight to maintain gun rights is a never ending battle as well. Arming yourself with a gun is the best defense against a violent attacker. Legally enshrining that right is important. But even if we didn't have that right, we could still defend ourselves clandestinely via illegal means and home made weapons. Similarly when it comes to security, privacy, and anonymity the best defense is to arm…

If someone made an argument that supports our right to strong encryption and doesn't also apply to gun rights I'd be impressed.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#209

Post by caf »

CaptSpify wrote: post #38
verandaguy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lying in response to a subpoena would be an EXTREMELY unwise move by OWS, or most other bodies in this position.

I don't disagree. But it still doesn't prove that they don't have the data. You can't prove a negative like that.

OK, it doesn't prove they don't have the data. It's strong circumstantial evidence that they don't have the data.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#210

Post by meowface »

ryandrake wrote: post #57
Bartweiss wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Roe v. Wade was still a great start and major victory, relatively speaking. Change takes time.

It's a bit more complicated here, though, since so much of this activity is clandestine. We can't know what rules they may be breaking (unintentionally or otherwise).

Post reply on HN