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

Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

whispersystems.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 258 posts

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#141

Post by [deleted] »

mikepurvis wrote: post #90
zeveb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A political decision to stop sabotaging technological solutions would be a good starting point. In America, we have had those, and it hasn't helped. We have a First Amendment and a Second Amendment, and yet we have campaign-finance restrictions and gun control. Political decisions simply don't stand. It's terribly sad.

Interesting perspective. I think the majority of the rest of the world is in awe that those two specific restrictions (such as they are today) are so inadequate at protecting anybody (from the rich and crazy people with guns, respectively).

[deleted]

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#143

Post by zeveb »

tptacek wrote: post #25
zeveb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only because they don't store it. They are able to choose to store it at any point; we can only rely on their honesty (and lack of compulsion). It's better to have a protocol in which there isn't any significant metadata to choose to store. I don't distrust them today, but I have no way of knowing what their future behaviour will be. I'd prefer not to have to trust.

Ah, I understand now. Thanks.

And thank you for replying so nicely — it's a sign that HN hasn't yet become /. or reddit. Best!

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#144

Post by Floegipoky »

wildmusings wrote: post #120
StavrosK wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but I'm kind of tired of having to fight my own government every step of the way. I'd prefer a political solution at this point.

You want the government to give up the right to access communications that it has the ability to access? You're talking about a fundamental weakening of government greater than has ever been attempted. Governments have always had the power to access your mail and papers and such, the only changes over time is the legal hurdles they must use to exercise that power.

This may seem like a small nitpick to some, but I think it's extremely important that people remember that, at least in the US, rights are reserved for The People; the government, by definition, does not have rights, only authority (explicit and implicit).

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#145

Post by eatbitseveryday »

wyager wrote: post #115
eatbitseveryday wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately, the protocols that enable truly traffic–analysis-resistant messaging (I believe the Pynchon Gate[1] is currently the best-of-breed) tend to have increased latency and consume greatly-increased bandwidth. One recent project that validates this is from ACM SOSP'15 titled "Vuvuzela: scalable private messaging resistant to traffic analysis"[1] (open-access URL): > Vuvuzela has a linear cost in the number…

> Freenet ... which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately. Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source?

>> Freenet ... which has led to conviction by police, unfortunately.

> Just for using it? That's crazy! Do you have a source?

Hm, I admit fault, hastily writing the above reply. I do not have sources for actual convictions, so what I wrote is not validated.

  s/has led to/may risk/
Source[1] that I read prior to my comment, which is under the thread[2] "Suspect jailed indefinitely for refusing to decrypt hard drives". The discussion was along the lines of, if you have encrypted data, and the state "knows" it has illegal content, your not decrypting it makes you liable for it. Thus the extrapolation to use of Freenet, which forwards encrypted content from others, and is heavily littered with CP[3], according to HN commenters.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590880

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11590421

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8081364

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#146

Post by snowwrestler »

ryandrake wrote: post #57
Bartweiss wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the big question is what a trustworthy political solution would look like. I see this desire raised a lot, in contexts from HN to Valley-mocking pieces on how encryption is no substitute for advocacy. I completely understand the instinct, but every incarnation of it seems to struggle with the same question. Namely: how do you know when you've won? Restrictions against collecting data on US citizens didn't prod…

You never win. To use a controversial example: Who thinks abortion rights people "won" with Roe v Wade? Their opponents have been relentlessly chipping away at that "victory" ever since. When you make something a political issue, you are guaranteeing that it cannot be won with any kind of finality.

> When you make something a political issue, you are guaranteeing that it cannot be won with any kind of finality.

But you also set up the infrastructure to fight the good fight forever. Which is what it takes to make democracy work, and work well.

Because everything important is a political issue, whether you want it to be or not. The Superconducting Supercollider, which was as clear a piece of pure science as you could imagine, was killed by politics. End to end encryption could be too.

Honestly, a major reason we are in this mess now is that for decades Silicon Valley has avoided politics and tried to pretend that the federal government does not exist. Now that it can't be ignored anymore, the tech industry does not have any of the civic institutions needed to build broad public support for its issues.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#147

Post by lifeisstillgood »

cloudjacker wrote: post #109
the_watcher wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, and something like this (where millions would instantly be in violation) would absolutely, 100% end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Some examples of when a law can be retroactively applied: When the Securities Exchange Commission decides that something is a security, it retroactively applies the civil and criminal compliance back to 1934 because it was always a security. I mean, you can argue it in front of a judge if you want, but thats how they established jurisdiction. Same goes for discretionary tax law at the IRS or any regulatory agency I a…

Not quite, SEC and other regulators do not really have the force of law, more the force of licensing and permissions

If you are a vast major bank and don't like the SEC you can try not being allowed in the doors of the private buildings of the NYSE, LSE etc.

They have the power not of law but of losing billions

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#148

Post by dragonwriter »

cloudjacker wrote: post #109
the_watcher wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, and something like this (where millions would instantly be in violation) would absolutely, 100% end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Some examples of when a law can be retroactively applied: When the Securities Exchange Commission decides that something is a security, it retroactively applies the civil and criminal compliance back to 1934 because it was always a security. I mean, you can argue it in front of a judge if you want, but thats how they established jurisdiction. Same goes for discretionary tax law at the IRS or any regulatory agency I a…

> When the Securities Exchange Commission decides that something is a security, it retroactively applies the civil and criminal compliance back to 1934 because it was always a security.

That's not a retroactive application of the law. If they are correct in their interpretation of the law, it was already the law. If they are incorrect, the courts will not allow it (whether the enforcement concerns acts before or after the determination by the SEC.)

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#150

Post by throw2016 »

Can a privacy service really be built in the US and that too in SFO which is ground zero for the fantastic new surveillance economy being imagined and built.

We know freedom loving software engineers after decades of posturing have long folded and left Snowden holding the baby.

We also know companies here are either closely linked to intelligence agencies or bending over backwards.

We know the executive branch is in the middle of a full blown identity crisis of whether they are the good guys or bad guys of the world. Closesly followed by a legal system that has developed a third world regime like affinity for blanket gag orders and rubber stamping with 100% approval rates. This is a bit like tasking the fox to protect the hens.

What stops a goverment friendly company from acquiring whispersystems, or whisper itself being some sort of a release valve operation?

Post reply on HN