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

FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

propertyofthepeople.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 474 posts

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#261

Post by heavyset_go »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #147
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people responsible for investigating and prosecuting such crimes have some not so great incentives to avoid doing so and keep the whole thing secret though, don't they? And then when they get caught, they do this: https://cdt.org/insights/the-truth-about-telecom-immunity/

Sounds like an easy way to have your case tossed out in court. It's funny how much this differs from my own personal experience with law enforcement. The friends I know are timid as hell and don't do anything without a warrant just to stay on the safe side- even if they probably don't need one.

Let's be honest, how often do people share with their pals about how they commit crimes, or are less than scrupulous, at work, assuming their pals aren't criminals, as well? People tend to keep things like that a secret, even from people that are close to them.

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#262

Post by heavyset_go »

giantg2 wrote: post #249
kingcharles wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck with that. In my case there was a ton of violations of the SCA. Violations of the SCA are only actionable if they are "constitutional" in nature. (That essentially means that if the government indict you based on information they illegally gathered through violating the SCA but the information did not belong to you - say it belonged your wife or business partner - then you can't get the information suppress…

Yep, the courts side with law enforcement. The whole 'truth comes out in a fair fight' is completely undermined by this. The system protects itself above all else. I was involved with a case that sounds similar - the judges don't care about your rights and blatantly missapply the law. Also, magistrates are also complete BS, and don't even know basic legal stuff. I had one think I called him prejudice when requesting…

> There's no real oversight, leading to a completely incompetent system.

It's the system working as intended. If you want something that looks like justice, you'll need substantial wealth to get it.

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#263

Post by heavyset_go »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #251
heavyset_go wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also: * Law enforcement simply asks nicely: can render all message content for the last 1-7 years

Companies also sell data to law enforcement.

Many tech companies even develop nice portals for law enforcement to use where they can request and view data, with or without a warrant or subpoena.

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#264

Post by ClumsyPilot »

throw_away_dgs wrote: post #230

Some FBI agents came to my house once and told me that my home Internet had been used to visit Islamic Extremist websites. They brought a local police office with them and a 'threat assessment' coordinator from my workplace. They asked me if my family was Muslim and wanted to know if we had been radicalized. We are not religious (at all). We do not attend church, synagogue or mosque. We are lower middle class white A…

"threat assessment' coordinator from my workplace" "I feared that I may lose my job."

I understand that police/FBI have to conduct investigation. What dont understand is involvement of the employer , it's extremely disturbing - you have not been convincted, you have not been charged, you are not even a suspect or accused of anything at this point - how is your private life the business of your employer?

Why is your privacy being breached and livehood being placed at risk?

Surely the FBI is not allowed to publicise random dirt they find on innocent people?

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#265

Post by sjs382 »

throw_away_dgs wrote: post #230

Some FBI agents came to my house once and told me that my home Internet had been used to visit Islamic Extremist websites. They brought a local police office with them and a 'threat assessment' coordinator from my workplace. They asked me if my family was Muslim and wanted to know if we had been radicalized. We are not religious (at all). We do not attend church, synagogue or mosque. We are lower middle class white A…

> and a 'threat assessment' coordinator from my workplace.

What was the reason for this? What type of workplace?

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#266

Post by BLKNSLVR »

throw_away_dgs wrote: post #230

Some FBI agents came to my house once and told me that my home Internet had been used to visit Islamic Extremist websites. They brought a local police office with them and a 'threat assessment' coordinator from my workplace. They asked me if my family was Muslim and wanted to know if we had been radicalized. We are not religious (at all). We do not attend church, synagogue or mosque. We are lower middle class white A…

It's (scarily) interesting that they react with actual personal attendance based purely on a very limited set of electronic information.

From your further description:

> We are not religious (at all). We do not attend church, synagogue or mosque. We are lower middle class white Americans born and raised in the USA and have never traveled outside the country.

Would not the FBI have been able to any amount of background searching (read: further electronic information gathering), that would be less effort-intensive than getting arranging a 'threat assessment' coordinator from throw_away_dgs' actual workplace and a local police officer for an in-person door-knock. If such background checks were performed, then they either don't have much data or their threat weightings are set to red-scare levels of paranoia. Either way, it's scary.

Unless there's more to the story.

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#267

Post by ichydkrsrnae »

unobatbayar wrote: post #260
ichydkrsrnae wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ulbricht was caught because an FBI agent, who would read things slowly and twice, recognized these 4 letters : heyy . That's how Ulbricht sometimes spelled hey , and the agent had seen that particular spelling before in his investigation, in an email from Ulbrict’s student email address. Nick Bilton's book “American Kingpin: The Epic Hunt for the Criminal Mastermind Behind the Silk Road” is a great read, highly recom…

That's what they want you to think. He was caught because; Nothing can match against the surveillance arsenal of the NSA.

That's not what I think, that's what Nick Bilton thinks. The quality of his book makes me partial to his thesis, of course, but NSA conspiracy blah adds nothing.

Also, lots more went into catching him than just heyy, but that was the lucky break that had him caught. Now he shares a prison with Dr. Unabomber Kazinsky.

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#268

Post by hutzlibu »

xster wrote: post #201
hutzlibu wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"are the fact that current privacy movements like Tor, Signal, OTF, BBG are fundamentally military funded and survive on government contracts." Are those "facts" avaiable for investigating, without having to buy the book? (that Tor is partly US administration funded is known, but Signal? And what is OTF and BGG?)

https://www.opentech.fund/results/supported-projects/open-wh... Funded by Open Technology Fund (OTF) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Technology_Fund Which is funded by Radio Free Asia (RFA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia . It had a few reboots but was created as a CIA program in 1951 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Asia_(Committee_for... ) to blast shortwaves into China from Manilla to tr…

And Signal?

The main tool, used for private communication?

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#269

Post by Terry_Roll »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #266
throw_away_dgs wrote: post #230

Some FBI agents came to my house once and told me that my home Internet had been used to visit Islamic Extremist websites. They brought a local police office with them and a 'threat assessment' coordinator from my workplace. They asked me if my family was Muslim and wanted to know if we had been radicalized. We are not religious (at all). We do not attend church, synagogue or mosque. We are lower middle class white A…

It's (scarily) interesting that they react with actual personal attendance based purely on a very limited set of electronic information. From your further description: > We are not religious (at all). We do not attend church, synagogue or mosque. We are lower middle class white Americans born and raised in the USA and have never traveled outside the country. Would not the FBI have been able to any amount of backgroun…

> It's (scarily) interesting that they react with actual personal attendance based purely on a very limited set of electronic information.

Either their intel is better than they let on and didnt think they would be walking into an ambush or they are more stupid than we think.

Re: FBI's ability to legally access secure messaging app content and metadata [pdf]

#270

Post by Eelongate »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #266
throw_away_dgs wrote: post #230

Some FBI agents came to my house once and told me that my home Internet had been used to visit Islamic Extremist websites. They brought a local police office with them and a 'threat assessment' coordinator from my workplace. They asked me if my family was Muslim and wanted to know if we had been radicalized. We are not religious (at all). We do not attend church, synagogue or mosque. We are lower middle class white A…

It's (scarily) interesting that they react with actual personal attendance based purely on a very limited set of electronic information. From your further description: > We are not religious (at all). We do not attend church, synagogue or mosque. We are lower middle class white Americans born and raised in the USA and have never traveled outside the country. Would not the FBI have been able to any amount of backgroun…

I think what he experienced is another manifestation of the same phenomena as zero-tolerance policies in schools; institutions ask their enforcers to suspend common sense and strictly enforce the letter of the law/guideline/etc, even in situations where any reasonable person would decide it made no sense. They do this because such common sense and gut feelings is how bias and prejudice might creep into their oh-so-perfect system.

It used to be that if a teacher saw a kid get bullied and then punch his bully back, the teacher was empowered to evaluate the situation using their best judgement, and punish the bully while congratulating the bullied kid who stuck up for himself. The system sees a problem with that; the teacher's perception of the incident might have bias and prejudice. The system's solution is to have zero tolerance for any violence and punish both students equally. The system's solution to the possibility of prejudice against one student is to ensure prejudice against both students.

Post reply on HN