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

FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#91

Post by scoofy »

fusslo wrote: post #40
spankalee wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's much of a problem at all. Many of the protesters and observers are not hiding their identities, so finding their phone number isn't a problem. Even with content, coordinating legal activities isn't a problem either.

I would never agree with you. protestors behaving legally or practicing civil disobedience can still have their lives ruined by people in power. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-supreme-court-s...

The literal point of civil disobedience is accepting that you may end up in jail:

"Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law."

-- Letter from the Birmingham Jail, MLK Jr: https://people.uncw.edu/schmidt/201Stuff/F14/B%20SophistSocr...

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#93

Post by paulryanrogers »

kodyo wrote: post #60
psunavy03 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DOD is not using "flagrantly using Signal." The Secretary of Defense, whatever his preferred pronouns are, is breaking the law.

CISA recommended Signal for encrypted end-to-end communications for "highly targeted individuals." https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mo...

Recommendations to the private sector don't condone violating security and retention laws for people working in the public sector.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#94

Post by lugu »

craftkiller wrote: post #43
nimbius wrote: post #3

i suppose what he means is that the phones of protestors which have signal chat will be investigated. Assuming they dont have disappearing messages activated, and assuming any protestors willingly unlock their phones.

> willingly unlock their phones Or they are running any mainstream iPhone or Android phone, they've unlocked the phone at least once since their last reboot, and the police have access to graykey. Not sure what the current state of things is, since we rely on leaked documents, but my take-away from the 2024 leaks was GrapheneOS Before First Unlock (BFU) is the only defense.

https://freedom.press/digisec/blog/new-leaks-on-police-phone...

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#95

Post by lenerdenator »

quickthrowman wrote: post #76

I’d be curious to know what they plan to charge people with.

Or, at the very least, what they want to try to convince a grand jury to indict people on.

That's another angle that needs to be discussed more often with respect to Trump's DoJ: if you're impaneled on a grand jury for charges coming out of these investigations, you don't have to give them a bill.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#96

Post by tremon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45
mrtesthah wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately not everyone in a group chat may be fully vetted, in which case they could be feds collecting "evidence". Some chats may have publicly circulating invite links. But any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis is doing the business of an authoritarian dictator. This is fully protected speech and assembly.

> any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis If you say something illegal in a chat with a cop in it, or say it in public, I don’t think there are Constitutional issues with the police using that as evidence. (If you didn’t say anything illegal, you have a valid defence.)

Not sure what difference that makes, it's not like the current regime limits their actions to respect constitutional bounds.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#97

Post by estearum »

scoofy wrote: post #91
fusslo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never agree with you. protestors behaving legally or practicing civil disobedience can still have their lives ruined by people in power. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-supreme-court-s...

The literal point of civil disobedience is accepting that you may end up in jail: "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law." -- Letter from the Birmingham Jail , MLK Jr: https://people.uncw.edu/schmidt/201Stuff…

Yeah, that doesn't make it "not a problem."

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#99

Post by rainonmoon »

causalscience wrote: post #84
ddtaylor wrote: post #6

I don't know signal very well but when I have spoken to others about it they mention that the phone number is the only metadata they will have access to. This seems like a good example of that being enough metadata to be a big problem.

I've been hearing for years people say "Signal requires phone number therefore I don't use it", and I've been hearing them mocked for years. Turns out they were right.

Absolutely nothing in this article is related to feds using conversation metadata to map participants, so, no they weren’t.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#100

Post by SR2Z »

charliebwrites wrote: post #85
ddtaylor wrote: post #6

I don't know signal very well but when I have spoken to others about it they mention that the phone number is the only metadata they will have access to. This seems like a good example of that being enough metadata to be a big problem.

The steps to trouble: - identify who owns the number - compel that person to give unlocked phone - government can read messages of _all_ people in group chat not just that person Corollary: Disappearing messages severely limits what can be read

Unless they compel people at gunpoint (which prevents the government from bringing a case), they will probably not have much luck with this. As soon as a user sets up a passcode or other lock on their phone, it is beyond the ability of even most parts of the US government to look inside.

It's much more likely that the government convinces one member of the group chat to turn on the other members and give up their phone numbers.

Post reply on HN