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

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#231

Post by ddtaylor »

OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote: post #206
causalscience wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They weren't though? Signal requires a phone number to sign up and it is linked to your account but your phone number is not used in the under the hood account or device identification, it is not shared by default, your number can be entirely removed from contact disovery if you wish, and even if they got a warrant or were tapping signal infra directly, it'd be extremely non trivial to extract user phone numbers. htt…

In past instances where Signal has complied with warrants, such as the 2021 and 2024 Santa Clara County cases, the records they provided included phone numbers to identify the specific accounts for which data was available. This was necessary to specify which requested accounts (identified by phone numbers in the warrants) had associated metadata, such as account creation timestamps and last connection dates.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#232

Post by huhtenberg »

bs7280 wrote: post #19

A wise man told me, you know signal works because its banned in Russia. I also find it incredibly ironic that they have a problem with this, when the DoD is flagrantly using signal for classified communications.

It doesn't mean much. Roblox is banned in Russia.

They've been just gradually banning everything not made in Russia.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#233

Post by OhMeadhbh »

mycodendral wrote: post #126
bediger4000 wrote: post #4

Why? That's unequivocally constitutionally protected speech. Why is our tax money being wasted on this?

Federal felony, not free speech. 18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer

Sure, but you should read what "impede" and "interfere" mean both in the regs and court precedent. Following ICE agents around is neither impeding or interfering by current federal court definitions. But yeah... that can change quickly.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#234

Post by ddtaylor »

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #191
causalscience wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I talked to Moxie about this 20 years ago at DefCon and he shrugged his shoulders and said "well... it's better than the alternative." He has a point. Signal is probably better than Facebook Messenger or SMS. Maybe there's a market for something better.

Briar and Session are the better encrypted messengers.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#235

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

mothballed wrote: post #173
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have no reason to believe it's true, and understand the rumor to be unsubstantiated, why bother to spread it?

Because the question was what they might be charged with, not what they did. Did you expect the government to charge people in good faith? It doesn't matter it if it's true or not, even putting them in the slammer for a long time while awaiting trial and forcing them to hire expensive attorneys is a win.

No, I don't expect the Trump administration to operate in good faith.

The post you replied to didn't ask what they might be charged with. It asked what they "plan" to charge.

And you replied with internet rumor nonsense. It's actually fine to say "I don't know" or simply not reply at all when someone asks a question to which you do not have an answer.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#236

Post by ddtaylor »

Bender wrote: post #195
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talked to Moxie about this 20 years ago at DefCon and he shrugged his shoulders and said "well... it's better than the alternative." He has a point. Signal is probably better than Facebook Messenger or SMS. Maybe there's a market for something better.

I remember listening to his talks and had some respect for him. He could defeat any argument about any perceived security regarding any facet of tech. Not so much any more. He knows as well as I do anything on a phone can never be secure. I get why he did it. That little boat needed an upgrade and I would do it too. Of course this topic evokes some serious psychological responses in most people. Wait for it.

> He knows as well as I do anything on a phone can never be secure

I assume because of the baseband stuff to be FCC compliant? Last I checked that meant DMA channels, etc. to access the real phone processor. All easily activated over the air.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#237

Post by OhMeadhbh »

poplarsol wrote: post #79
bediger4000 wrote: post #4

Why? That's unequivocally constitutionally protected speech. Why is our tax money being wasted on this?

Coordinating roadblocks, "dearrests", warning the subjects of law enforcement operations, and intentionally causing the maximum amount of noise in neighborhoods neighborhood are not things you will be able to get a federal judge to characterize as "constitutionally protected speech".

Actually... making noise in a neighborhood is constitutionally protected speech (as I have learned when my neighbors crank the sub-par disco up to 11.)

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#238

Post by forshaper »

OhMeadhbh wrote: post #181
crystal_revenge wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm never sure why people assume that Palantir is magically unlike the overwhelming majority of tech startups/companies I've worked at: vastly over promising what is possible to create hype and value while offering things engineering knows will never really quite work like they're advertised. To your point, but on a larger scale, over hyping Palantir has the added benefit of providing a chilling effect on public resi…

lol. came here to say pretty much the same thing.

I've generally held this position, but assume a sufficient combination of models could do a lot more than was possible before.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#239

Post by smeej »

ddtaylor wrote: post #231
OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren't though? Signal requires a phone number to sign up and it is linked to your account but your phone number is not used in the under the hood account or device identification, it is not shared by default, your number can be entirely removed from contact disovery if you wish, and even if they got a warrant or were tapping signal infra directly, it'd be extremely non trivial to extract user phone numbers. htt…

In past instances where Signal has complied with warrants, such as the 2021 and 2024 Santa Clara County cases, the records they provided included phone numbers to identify the specific accounts for which data was available. This was necessary to specify which requested accounts (identified by phone numbers in the warrants) had associated metadata, such as account creation timestamps and last connection dates.

This was before Signal switched to a username system.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#240

Post by ddtaylor »

causalscience wrote: post #197
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talked to Moxie about this 20 years ago at DefCon and he shrugged his shoulders and said "well... it's better than the alternative." He has a point. Signal is probably better than Facebook Messenger or SMS. Maybe there's a market for something better.

I have no idea if that was true 20 years ago, but it's not true now. XMPP doesn't have this problem; your host instance knows your IP but you can connect via Tor.

OTR has been on XMPP for so long now
Post reply on HN