131–140 of 226 posts
This is scary, intentional bullying. It costs the govt none of their own money (they have unlimited taxpayer money) to launch these attacks, but it costs Signal or other organizations a lot of their own money to defend against them. It will continue until Signal agrees to become part of the surveillance state or goes broke and goes away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both of those DHTs are using centralized signalling servers to first be able to establish any P2P connections. Maybe there has been some recent invention in DHTs, but AFAIK, 100% P2P discovery is still not "there" (meaning "accessible, fast, not using too much resources and can find other peers")
I don't know if any systems actually work like this, but wouldn't it be possible to include in the client a short hardcoded list of entry points to the network which are all run by different entities (in different jurisdictions)? Each entity could have their own public key (also hardcoded into the client), and the client could pick one at random and then bootstrap you up to the entire P2P network, where it would find…
Probably is that all of those techniques, are still centralized.
The subpoena is from Homeland Security Investigations at LAX airport. They deal specifically with crimes that involve international transport. So this is human trafficking, drug smuggling, money mules, etc. To be honest the rest of it is just standard "we have some phone numbers" boilerplate. Same thing was probably sent to Facebook, Twitter, etc. with the hopes that someone was dumb enough to login and check their m…
There’s a facetious saying in legal circles about the ease with which prosecutors can secure indictments in grand jury cases: You can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The legal aphorism has long been attributed to Sol Wachtler, former chief judge of New York’s Court of Appeals, based on a piece that appeared in the New York Daily News in January 1985. Mr. Wachtler told the paper that the state should scra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having sat on a grand jury, the 95% is because it's a rigged system. The DA has to convinces 50% of the people that there is a 50% chance that their one sided story is possibly true. This is a lower bar than individuals are held to at cocktail parties.
So it may not be great, but what’s the alternative? The prosecutor decides independently when to bring charges? Is that better? It just seems to skip a step.
It's probably unwise to think prosecutors and federal agents are stupid. They were in the 1990s crypto wars, but not now. What we tend to perceive as 'stupid' is in reality, 'powerful.' They don't need to explain themselves, because they put the onus of compliance on you. Gaming out the subpoena, Signal does not have this user information because it does not exist, but it does have server locations, 3rd party service…
Legal systems are peopled by people. Just like other systems. Unlike many other systems, the American legal system is in fact highly distributed—so it's hard to say things like "The System is out to destroy you"; individual agents of that "system" might have different, misaligned, or antagonistic goals.
Much of this is by design.
Of course, even when not by design, the local, state, and federal agencies, elected officials, and judiciaries which make up "the government" comprise a massive, federated, distributed organization, far more complex, and far less centrally administered, than the most chaotic FAANG company.
So if you think Microsoft can't turn their product strategy on a dime, well, the US government isn't capable of reacting to the Cellebrite blog post this quickly (even if this subpoena didn't precede that post, as someone else pointed out).
(As an aside, while I'm not a lawyer, the question on "interstate wiring" seems rather obviously to suggest that the investigators are pursuing a theory of federal criminal charges that require the messaging to cross state lines. Getting Signal to say "yes, this is interstate" might just be something they need to convince a grand jury the theory applies.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if any systems actually work like this, but wouldn't it be possible to include in the client a short hardcoded list of entry points to the network which are all run by different entities (in different jurisdictions)? Each entity could have their own public key (also hardcoded into the client), and the client could pick one at random and then bootstrap you up to the entire P2P network, where it would find…
Yes, this is essentially how "P2P bootstrapping" works today. BitTorrent does it via "trackers", IPFS does it via their "bootstrapping" list (known IPFS nodes with static IP/DNS) and Bitcoin used to do it via IRC. Probably is that all of those techniques, are still centralized.
I suppose you could argue that the list itself is centralized, if there is only one list, but if the protocol is an open standard then different clients could ship with different lists.
Would you say that the web PKI is "centralized" because most browsers agree on which CAs to trust?
The cover letter from DHS says they need to warn the agent before disclosure. Presumably they did that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subpoena is dated 29 march. That puts it before the celebrite blog. Hence, it cannot be a response to that blog.
Fair and astute observation, and it implies prosecutors have been rounding on Signal for months at least before the Cellebrite blog post as well. However, it also means there was already a snare set for them before the post. I would still not underestimate what these people are capable of. If they want to get you, they will find a way to get you.
It's unlikely that prosecutors don't realize how Signal works. It's more likely they assume that, much like the rest of the tech world, there has been an increase in data collection efforts and they want to test the waters again to confirm/deny this data is available via Signal internals. Subpoenas are the only mechanism by which they're able to do so. That Signal are able to pivot to the media and say "yup, still co…
> It's unlikely that prosecutors don't realize how Signal works. Why would you expect them to understand how Signal works? A lawyer does not and cannot become a subject matter expert for every aspect of a case they undertake. A lawyer's job is to investigate every possible avenue for evidence to support their case. They're going to ask Signal for everything imaginable and have legal recourse if they discover at a lat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But trial by jury continues to be used in several countries (maybe in more restricted ways but it still a thing) or is there something special about a "Grand Jury"?
Yes a grand jury is just the prosecutor and jury. It's secret and the defendant doesn't even know. It's a way to start a case, not sure when a prosecutor needs or doesn't need a grand jury.
• High public interest in the case;
• The fact that a preliminary hearing would take more time than a grand jury hearing;
• The necessity for calling children or timid witnesses who would be subject to cross‑examination at a preliminary hearing;
• The ability to test a witness before a jury;
• Where the secrecy of the grand jury may allow defendants to be charged and taken into custody before they can pose potential danger to a witness' safety or flee from the jurisdiction;
• Where the identity of undercover agents needs to be protected;
• The existence of a weak or doubtful case which the district attorney wishes to test;
• The opportunity to involve the community in case screening; and
• Whether the case involves malfeasance in office.
https://www.pooleshaffery.com/news/2014/december/a-crash-cou...