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

Snapchat admits to handing unopened 'snaps' to US law enforcement

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: Snapchat admits to handing unopened 'snaps' to US law enforcement

#11

Post by rwmj »

ErsatzVerkehr wrote: post #8
dingaling wrote: post #7

I hadn't heard of the app before now, but I'm not finding much sympathy for users of a system built on the premise that they should not have access to data on their own device. Anyway, a clarification of the headline: not only 'unopened' snaps, but also those that have not yet been opened by all nominated recipients. So if a law enforcement agent can have themselves invited into a Snapchat circle they can take advant…

> I'm not finding much sympathy for users of a system built on the premise that they should not have access to data on their own device One of the more out-of-touch HN comments I've seen in a while. And that's saying a lot! Look at it this way: the person sending the snapchat owns the "data", and is just granting the recipient permission to watch it for ~10 seconds.

To the surprise of no one, this isn't possible and Snapchat has already been cracked:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24533919

Re: Snapchat admits to handing unopened 'snaps' to US law enforcement

#12

Post by ErsatzVerkehr »

rwmj wrote: post #11
ErsatzVerkehr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not finding much sympathy for users of a system built on the premise that they should not have access to data on their own device One of the more out-of-touch HN comments I've seen in a while. And that's saying a lot! Look at it this way: the person sending the snapchat owns the "data", and is just granting the recipient permission to watch it for ~10 seconds.

To the surprise of no one, this isn't possible and Snapchat has already been cracked: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24533919

Agreed, but, do most of the users of SnapChat care?

Re: Snapchat admits to handing unopened 'snaps' to US law enforcement

#13

Post by haakon »

codezero wrote: post #4
tadeegan wrote: post #2

Okay, seriously, what could someone possibly send over snapchat that is important to national security?

Registered sex offenders sending pictures of their dicks to teenagers who are foolish enough in their youth to share their Snapchat name publicly in hopes of making a social connection. Not national security, but an arguably reasonable law enforcement target.

Or teen sexting, you know. Child pornography production is a serious offence.

Re: Snapchat admits to handing unopened 'snaps' to US law enforcement

#14

Post by eksith »

smsm42 wrote: post #9

If the law enforcement has a proper warrants signed by court, no wonder they are complying with it, there's nothing to "admit". It's like "admitting" if the police stops you on the road, you'd show your driver's license to them. What else could they do? The fact they continue to function makes it obvious they comply with court orders - we all know what happens to those who don't.

The definition of "proper warrant" is rather shaky as it is these days. Besides that, there methods (short of shuttering your business in protest) to prevent access to data without denying access to law enforcement. You can't divulge what you don't know: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/a-court-order-is-a...

Of course, this is complicated for images, not to mention resource intensive, but it's entirely possible to lock down your services to a point where you literally cannot divulge information on your users since you don't have it.

Re: Snapchat admits to handing unopened 'snaps' to US law enforcement

#15

Post by dalore »

rwmj wrote: post #11
ErsatzVerkehr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not finding much sympathy for users of a system built on the premise that they should not have access to data on their own device One of the more out-of-touch HN comments I've seen in a while. And that's saying a lot! Look at it this way: the person sending the snapchat owns the "data", and is just granting the recipient permission to watch it for ~10 seconds.

To the surprise of no one, this isn't possible and Snapchat has already been cracked: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24533919

No who uses snapchat think it's super secure as everyone realises you can just take a screenshot (app detects this and notifies the sender), or you can just take a photo with another camera.

It's just about making it harder for the average user to save a potentially embarrassing photo and allow you to send fun pics that are too crappy to put onto facebook/twitter.

Re: Snapchat admits to handing unopened 'snaps' to US law enforcement

#17

Post by peterjancelis »

haakon wrote: post #13
codezero wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Registered sex offenders sending pictures of their dicks to teenagers who are foolish enough in their youth to share their Snapchat name publicly in hopes of making a social connection. Not national security, but an arguably reasonable law enforcement target.

Or teen sexting, you know. Child pornography production is a serious offence.

Two 15 year olds sexting is mutual pornography production in the US?

Re: Snapchat admits to handing unopened 'snaps' to US law enforcement

#18

Post by vidarh »

peterjancelis wrote: post #17
haakon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or teen sexting, you know. Child pornography production is a serious offence.

Two 15 year olds sexting is mutual pornography production in the US?

Not just in the US. If it includes pictures, it'd potentially be so most places depending on how explicit the pictures are.

Re: Snapchat admits to handing unopened 'snaps' to US law enforcement

#20

Post by jbigelow76 »

peterjancelis wrote: post #17
haakon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or teen sexting, you know. Child pornography production is a serious offence.

Two 15 year olds sexting is mutual pornography production in the US?

Depending on how puritanical the District Attorney and/or the Judge are, yes (how safe their office is come election time figures into it too - "Vote for me, I'm tough on crime!").

It's not rare to read about some teen that is having to register as a sex offender for doing the kind of things teens have been doing for a long time, it's just that now technology keeps the evidence around and accessible.

Post reply on HN