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

Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 226 posts

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#161

Post by dragonwriter »

billytetrud wrote: post #159
infogulch wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I may restate this slightly: > Subpoenas are the only mechanism by which prosecutors are able to test the waters to confirm/deny whether they can demand production of this data I think many people fail to appreciate the importance of setting a precedent in the courts. Maybe this is because our legislators have been shirking responsibility for decades and pushing what should be their work off onto the executive and…

This is the problem with the common law system. It's a haphazard set of poking and prodding where written law is less than half the story. We really need to switch to a civil law system in this country.

> This is the problem with the common law system. It's a haphazard set of poking and prodding where written law is less than half the story

Except that written law is the whole story.

(Precedential court decisions are, after all, not transmitted as oral history.)

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#162

Post by thecrash »

ysnp wrote: post #87

Something I am not sure about as a layman: What is the likelihood that the documents Signal are allowed to publish, concerning subpoenas, are an accurate account of all the information they can provide? Could Homeland Security/FBI compel them to lie in the evidence they have produced? In [1], Signal mention that traffic correlation via timing attacks and IP addresses are a work-in-progress as far as their metadata pr…

My rough understanding is that in the US the State can compel silence but not compel speech. Warrant canaries take this reasoning to an untested extreme, but it seems safe to assume that ordering Signal to tell elaborate lies about its subpoena responses would not fly in court.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#163

Post by zerocrates »

gumby wrote: post #88
raverbashing wrote: post #51

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"?

The system of having a judge/prosecutor with broad investigative powers is unknown in the US, which is probably a good thing given how the rest of the system is organized. The jury that hears the evidence in a trial is referred to as the petit jury (small jury). It is convened for a single case. The grand jury is a standing body (also supposed to be drawn from the populace, and with definite tenure) which hears preli…

Not all states have judicial elections. In Virginia, for example, judges are appointed by the legislature. There are also some that appoint rather than elect attorneys general and local prosecutors.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#164

Post by justaguy88 »

djoldman wrote: post #95
mdeck_ wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a lawyer, and you’re correct. It’s typically called a “jurisdictional hook.” In certain regards the US Constitution limits the U.S. Congress’s ability to legislate to issues that touch on “interstate commerce.” If it all happens within Montana’s borders, that’s typically for Montana to handle in its own state legislature. So, for the DOJ to investigate something, they have to then satisfy whatever jurisdictional…

I'm less certain of the following but as I understand it: if the event in question involves telephone/fiber lines or airwaves, it's usually a shoe-in for Fed jurisdiction anyway because those are generally regulated by some Fed agency and/or travel at some point through Fed-owned, regulated, or operated assets.

I'm now wondering if it's possible to make a within-state-only messaging service. What would something look like that manages to avoid Federal jurisdiction as much as possible?

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#165

Post by dragonwriter »

gumby wrote: post #88
raverbashing wrote: post #51

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"?

The system of having a judge/prosecutor with broad investigative powers is unknown in the US, which is probably a good thing given how the rest of the system is organized. The jury that hears the evidence in a trial is referred to as the petit jury (small jury). It is convened for a single case. The grand jury is a standing body (also supposed to be drawn from the populace, and with definite tenure) which hears preli…

> Actually the executive's courts are pretty clearly not constitutional but they have survived enough challenges that they are simply the way they are.

They are Constitutional, they just perform Article II executive functions and are established under Article I powers of Congress; despite being called “courts”, they do not exercise any part of the Constitutional judicial power. (Hence, why they are described as “Article I courts” as opposed to the “Article III courts”.)

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#166

Post by mgarfias »

merpnderp wrote: post #118
cptskippy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Because a prosecutor calls up the IT crime lab and asks for the rundown. And since they have massive budgets, there actually is a well trained head of the IT crime lab who is perfectly capable of understanding and explaining (to a jury) how Signal works.

You’re very optimistic about the state of budgets, crime lab competence, etc

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#167

Post by aitkenably »

justaguy88 wrote: post #164
djoldman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm less certain of the following but as I understand it: if the event in question involves telephone/fiber lines or airwaves, it's usually a shoe-in for Fed jurisdiction anyway because those are generally regulated by some Fed agency and/or travel at some point through Fed-owned, regulated, or operated assets.

I'm now wondering if it's possible to make a within-state-only messaging service. What would something look like that manages to avoid Federal jurisdiction as much as possible?

You’d have to take into consideration Federal lands within states where federal laws apply: National Parks, military installations, and other Federal buildings like courthouses.

U.S. jurisdiction is complicated.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#168

Post by djoldman »

justaguy88 wrote: post #164
djoldman wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm less certain of the following but as I understand it: if the event in question involves telephone/fiber lines or airwaves, it's usually a shoe-in for Fed jurisdiction anyway because those are generally regulated by some Fed agency and/or travel at some point through Fed-owned, regulated, or operated assets.

I'm now wondering if it's possible to make a within-state-only messaging service. What would something look like that manages to avoid Federal jurisdiction as much as possible?

If your service sends signals from cellphones (radio waves), those are regulated by the FCC...

Fed jurisdiction extends in weird ways.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#169

Post by wolverine876 »

capableweb wrote: post #31
andix wrote: post #3

Let's see if they try to search the Signal servers for any evidence. And if there is really no information stored. Or if that will disrupt Signal services. The central, non-distributed architecture is always a big concern against Signal.

Surprisingly, the response from the Signal team hints that Signal is sometimes P2P. This is the first time I hear about this, what is it referring to exactly? I, like you, thought Signal was 100% centralized. > [...] because the data is transmitted peer-to-peer or relayed through a third-party server [...] Attachment A, Section 2C

There's a setting in Signal where you can force it to always (or never?) use P2P.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#170

Post by GoblinSlayer »

motohagiography wrote: post #144
md_ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those posts that sounds truthy because it makes a bunch of broad assertions. ;) 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 d…

A semantic argument about the scope of a synecdoche doesn't address the substance of whether Signal should underestimate the intent and consequences of a clumsy looking subpoena. Partisan and other exceedingly bad actors in a system necessarily have even better special protections than good ones, because they're the ones a system has to defend to defend the legitimacy of itself. Ask any union or profession that behav…

>Signal has antagonized prosecutors as a class

That's literally how the justice system works in every case. For some reason it was designed this way.

Post reply on HN