Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data • Hacker News Board

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#161

Post by api » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

fatdog wrote: post #160

It might be worth considering why authorities think banning or regulating encryption is tractable. - 100+ years of business telecommunications without significant strong encryption. - Robust wiretapping and law enforcement access laws and practices that mean there is NO place or piece of information within US sovereign territory that is inaccessible to an authorized agent of the state. - they have the expectation of…

It's already quite "real" in many countries around the world where using strong crypto in the wrong way can get you imprisoned or killed.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#162

Post by lerpa » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 9:03 PM UTC

jimktrains2 wrote: post #133

bahjoite wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the bottom of the gag order is states that OWS "may disclose the attached subpoena to an attorney for [OWS] for the purpose of receiving legal advice".

Is that required to be there? Is that just a curtesy? It would be unconstitutional otherwise, but, I don't know. It just seems odd. Is the attorney now bound by a gag order?

Well maybe they could contact an attorney through an online chat system that does leak conversations and surprisingly posts those private conversations about shady things govt wants to their website front page. What a bummer. Some lawyer needs to create www.gagorderattorney.com

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#163

Post by burkaman » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

Anasufovic wrote: post #155

burkaman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When has assassination ever accomplished what the assassin wanted? Most successful political movements, at least in recent history, do not involve killing anybody.

With higher profile assassinations, the results seem to be less predictable. But I think we tend to ignore all the smaller assassinations that gave just the right edge to the opposition since those people just fade into the background noise.

Do you have an example? If you're talking about government-sponsored assassinations, I think that's less relevant, we're talking about how "normal" people can influence politicians.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#164

Post by h4nkoslo » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 9:09 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #148

cloudjacker wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 afte…

The issue is that they, and other administrative organs, often change their interpretation of what the law "has always meant". Particularly irksome when they issue private letters with differing interpretations and then override all of them with subsequent administrative rulings.

The ATF is particularly notorious for this.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#165

Post by mirimir » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 9:21 PM UTC

fweespeech wrote: post #45

zeveb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political solutions change as politics change: I think it's better to be mathematically secure than politically secure, since the one is forever and the other only sure until the next election.

They can just make it illegal to own a mathematically secure piece of software without a license.

Well, it was illegal to smoke marijuana everywhere in the US for several decades. That didn't stop people from doing it. And now it's becoming legal.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#166

Post by Floegipoky » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #151

Floegipoky wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

It's not even a nitpick as much as a distraction from what's being talked about. In the sense that I used the word "right", it can be exchanged for the word "power" and have the exact same meaning. In fact, I make that exchange in my comment. What exactly is your point?

My point is that terms like 'right', 'power', and 'authority' are not interchangeable, they mean different things. There are other tangential points, but this entire thread is essentially about people objecting to government exercising power without authority in a way that violates rights. I hope that illustrates both the differences between these terms and why it's important to use the correct language in this discussion.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#167

Post by fweespeech » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

marketanarchist wrote: post #104

fweespeech wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They license it to businesses that cooperate with the government. It wouldn't backfire, honestly. The fact no one has done anything major about any of the other surveillance state BS is proof enough of that.

Well, one could argue that rise of Trump, Bernie, backlash against mainstream media etc are partially due to the surveillance state BS. In any case, there are still the negative economic consequence which important alone, but also affect politics.

> Well, one could argue that rise of Trump, Bernie, backlash against mainstream media etc are partially due to the surveillance state BS.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/donald-trump-muslims-...

> Trump doubles down on calls for mosque surveillance

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/26167...

> Trump said Tuesday that he would be "fine" with restoring provisions of the Patriot Act to allow for the bulk data collection, something candidates such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have also called for that was banned with the passage of the USA Freedom Act, which Cruz supported.

Well I don't think I'm going to agree given the only person who made it to the GE is a guy who supports surveillance.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#168

Post by fweespeech » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #135

cloudjacker wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean, all of those agencies are formed under the constitution and the systems that support them are also abiding by the constitution

The Constitution states, 'no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed'; to the extent that those executive agencies' enabling legislation permits ex post facto regulations, that legislation is unconstitutional.

The Government can simply ban the use of that software without a license set at a future date (i.e. 1/1/2017).

New Regulation -> Future Date -> Ex post facto claims don't happen.

That is the process my original comment intended to imply.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#169

Post by fweespeech » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 9:54 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #165

fweespeech wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can just make it illegal to own a mathematically secure piece of software without a license.

Well, it was illegal to smoke marijuana everywhere in the US for several decades. That didn't stop people from doing it. And now it's becoming legal.

Yes. However, that doesn't change the fact casual users that are largely harmless ended up losing years of their lives and had their ability to earn a good living to support themselves casually destroyed in the process.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data

#170

Post by pooper » Tue, Oct 04, 2016, 10:01 PM UTC

Programmatic wrote: post #95

stingraycharles wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't OWS be able to push an update specifically targeted at retrieving the necessary information to decrypt that specific user's data?

Or be forced a la Lavabit to install a pen register which would capture the metadata from that point forward.

What is the solution here? The solution that minimizes damage involves everyone building from source and connecting in a peer to peer fashion that makes it pretty difficult to push a malicious update if you're looking for targeted surveillance.

However, even this requires an understanding government that isn't willing to poison the well in order to get to the target. A government that justifies dragnet (and whose agencies allegedly buy and sit on a stash of zero days) isn't something I'd trust to be bothered by the idea of leaving many people vulnerable in order to catch one bad guy.

I know it sounds trite but technology will not provide a full solution here. We need a lot of lobbying and a lot of PR to have any chance. Co-ordination will be very challenging when our goals very so wildly. But I guess we need to ask ourselves where we stand on this issue. Given we have difficulty getting almost half of the people to even bother registering and showing up to vote, this is an uphill task.