Impressive, but why do they need to store the exact times of when the account was created and last accessed? I would think a very coarse time down to the month would be good for most system administration needs.
Last accessed is rounded to the day.
Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
191–200 of 618 posts
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#192How did Signal know who they meant?
Phone number.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#193While I applaud Signal's response I expect this entire event (subpoena and response) will be provided as one of the exhibits to congress by the Department of Justice to justify their request that it be unlawful to provide such services. The DoJ will say, "See, here is this horrible crime we are investigating and because this company chose to make it impossible for law enforcement, with a warrant and a subpoena to get…
Nothing any company can do about that. Spying programs and laws will only worsen unless people really voice their concerns and elect the right people.
Except Apple is making a direct attempt at solving the issue as it relates to CSAM (and easily expanded to other data) and facing a huge backlash. I wonder if there’s no solution because we’re (myself included) are just stubbornly unwilling to consider any solution that isn’t absolute privacy. I’m not willing to sacrifice my privacy to a nosy government, but willing to consider solutions that might allow the government to pursue its goals. Apple seems to think it’s possible that we can have the best of both worlds, even if they clearly haven’t figured it out just yet.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#194It’s easy so say net win for society is privacy. But it’s important to also acknowledge it does come at a cost — there exists criminal behavior that most reasonable people would agree is bad and should be stopped that may reach a dead end with services like Signal. In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem, you are suggesting there shouldn’t be ways to uncover crimes.
>there exists criminal behavior that most reasonable people would agree is bad and should be stopped Absolutely. >In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem, you are suggesting there shouldn’t be ways to uncover crimes. I didn't get that at all. Before Signal and other encrypted apps, folks who didn't want to be spied upon would meet in person, in private places or write messages in c…
You’re attacking a straw man. I never proposed anything other than recognizing the cost of encryption. And if you are to honestly do so, then you also need to recognize things happen now digitally that would have been in person before, which ends up leaving clues like witnesses and DNA.
The world isn’t black and white.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised the FBI has tried to get a custom keyboard into the Play Store yet, or asked Google to add a key logger to the stock one. Sure, the legality is blury at the moment , but it's just a matter of changing some laws and then that becomes legal.
I assume Google's reports back already. They need that for ML training.
Google has been pretty adamant for years that they don't use or retain your Gboard data, unless you're typing it into search or some Google product that gathers it there. Prediction is supposedly done in-app.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#196Anybody concerned about these issues should consider donating to their favourite non profit that can have an impact that works in the area. Most HN users can afford $20/year pretty easily (others could afford $200/month and not even notice it)
As they say, “Put your money where your mouth is.”
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people There's a subpoena in this process that you're glossing over. You can argue that's too easy or too secretive or something, and that's more than fair, but it's not just 'clicking a button'.
I'm not arguing about the subpoena, I'm arguing against the idea that encrypted solutions are bad. If you have a subpoena to open a safe, and you realize that you have no tools that are strong enough to open that safe, you don't suddenly blame safes. You don't tell banks they should stop using safes. You don't ask them to create weaker safes robbers can break into. You try another route. A subpoena is fair. Asking si…
azinman2 didn't say that there should not be encryption, just that there's a cost, and I think that's a fair statement. Sometimes, 'other methods' are not viable and you're not going to be able to stop the bad guys.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#198I'm worried that the provided information could be incorrect. For example, that user could have messages waiting to be delivered to himself. In that case, I think signal doesn't know the senders but should still disclose the number of those messages and their size.
Signal erases that kind of information but I'm pretty sure that user must have had some messages delivered to them while signal was processing the subpoena. So pretenting they don't know anything else is just wrong IMO.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#199It’s easy so say net win for society is privacy. But it’s important to also acknowledge it does come at a cost — there exists criminal behavior that most reasonable people would agree is bad and should be stopped that may reach a dead end with services like Signal. In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem, you are suggesting there shouldn’t be ways to uncover crimes.
No. They’re suggesting that law enforcement should have a valid reason to request someone’s private data such as this process. You have added that last line yourself, and it appears to suggest that you would prefer all of humanity be constantly surveilled in case it may catch more criminals.
> you would prefer all of humanity be constantly surveilled in case it may catch more criminals.
Not only did I not say such a thing (I even said it was easy to argue that encryption is a net win), it’s not something I believe, especially when you put it in such extreme terms. But encryption brings a cost, one that shouldn’t be ignored.
Most people here are taking extreme arguments — assuming everything is about mass surveillance and crimes are more often than not victimless. This ignores the reality that real crimes are regularly happening that most reasonable people would wish to stop, and when you add friction to that, it means there are many cases were justice will not be served.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#200Why did they even incorporate in the USA, I'd guess they'd have less work in like the Seychelles or Belize.
Protonmail is incorporated in Switzerland, but even then they have been compelled to give up user logs and ip addresses.