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

221–226 of 226 posts

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

#221

Post by circularfoyers »

swiley wrote: post #219
hans1729 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Smartphones in their current form cannot have secure messaging. What about self-hosted matrix/element, used from the browser?

Maybe but 1) You don't get push notifications on most mobile OSes 2) Mobile users have poor control over their browser (if any.)

Addressing your first point, web push notifications works persistently on Firefox and Chromium on Android.

And I'm not sure what you're referring to by "control", but Firefox on Android allows you to install addons and use about:config (Chromium can't do the former and doesn't have an equivalent for the latter, even on desktop).

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

#222

Post by cryptonector »

antman wrote: post #216
auiya wrote: post #90

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…

Also it is an opportunity to test whether Signal's persistence on registering only with a phone number was a good idea or not, considering that it is mandatory in many countries to register with your ID.

But phone numbers require ID to obtain, so indirectly Signal has not skirted that requirement.

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

#223

Post by cptskippy »

tekknik wrote: post #212
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…

> 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. I really hope the lawyer I’m hiring is at least a subject matter expert on the specific laws around the subject. Then a simple google search would explain how this data isn’t available.

Expert knowledge of the laws doesn't give you understanding of the technology.

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

#224

Post by wildfire »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #140
homero wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are reasons in which it is an appropriate or desirable alternative to a preliminary hearing. The California Grand Jury Association cites multiple surveys that have been taken of California district attorneys, who listed the following factors as influential in the decision to seek a grand jury indictment rather than using the preliminary hearing: • High public interest in the case; • The fact that a preliminary…

Thanks for the list, I still would like to understand why a Grand Jury needs to exist when our countries, presumably, also have the same set of problems but not a Grand Jury.

I wonder how other common law systems handle this (not a lawyer, am genuinely asking).

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

#225

Post by consumer451 »

Phenix88be wrote: post #29
movedx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I really wish they would go decentralised. If they did, I'd order up my 1gbit/1gbit dedicated link at the office and offer it up immediately.

I used to think the same, but I changed my mind after this talk : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YFprqAr8 There is a lot of very good point in this talk by Moxie, it's a bit long, but worth it.

Thank you for sharing that talk! Very thought provoking for sure, and wow what a brave guy for giving that talk to that crowd.

I also learned a lot about why Signal does what it does.

I highly recommend this video to everybody, no matter your background or current work role.

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

#226

Post by billytetrud »

ska wrote: post #181
billytetrud wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We really need to switch to a civil law system in this country. "pure" versions of either don't work - it's more like a spectrum. Unfortunately moving to more legislative emphasis than case law only works if you have an efficient legislative process to update. If that's too adversarial, you get the worst of both worlds.

I actually kind of don't agree. Even in our system, legislation is far more powerful than judicial. Fixing the legislative system is imperative regardless of judicial system
Post reply on HN