The latest installment in the "Government doesn't understand math" series
Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
301–310 of 618 posts
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second this EFF is where I would go to support this myself snd do monthly. ACLU has lost its way picking civil rights to support or not.
Which actual rights is ACLU supposedly failing to support?
They have limited resources and so they cannot fight every single fight. Some people object to their current method of filtering. Apparently, groups tied to neo-nazi/white-supremacy are some of the ones they filter out of consideration, but they have done so in the past.
Some people think the ACLU should fight specifically for such organizations to make a point that everyone, even hateful bigots, have the same rights.
Personally? I'm on the fence. On the one hand, given limited resources & all else being equal in two cases, why not choose the group of people who are nicer? On the other hand, if you choose the hateful group & set a precedent that even the most hateful people have the same set of rights as others, it's close to irrefutable in future cases with nicer people that they get those rights too.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#303While I applaud Signal's response I expect this entire event (subpoena and response) will be provided as one of the exhibits to congress by the Department of Justice to justify their request that it be unlawful to provide such services. The DoJ will say, "See, here is this horrible crime we are investigating and because this company chose to make it impossible for law enforcement, with a warrant and a subpoena to get…
Bonus points for sending the Unix timestamps in millis ... I hope the lawyer who got this response has to hire a consultant too translate it for the court!
I am a bit skeptical about the precision due to the last 3 zeros for the 'last connection date'. It seems to unlikely that it got exactly that moment...
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#304While I applaud Signal's response I expect this entire event (subpoena and response) will be provided as one of the exhibits to congress by the Department of Justice to justify their request that it be unlawful to provide such services. The DoJ will say, "See, here is this horrible crime we are investigating and because this company chose to make it impossible for law enforcement, with a warrant and a subpoena to get…
Bonus points for sending the Unix timestamps in millis ... I hope the lawyer who got this response has to hire a consultant too translate it for the court!
(Non-practicing) Lawyer here. We aren't universally technologically illiterate. Many of us are former programmers, and still are in our spare time.
And those people who help you draft patents for your computer-related inventions? Also lawyers.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you name some please? Do you mean like ACLU (BCCLA in Canada)
The ACLU is not what it once was. I will not donate to them. Even the EFF is growing questionable. I would definitely be curious what recommendations people have.
The ACLU are providing legal services to Signal in this case. (See the signatories to Signal's response to the subpoena.)
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#306Noticed that the last connection time is a date, rounded to the day. 1634169600000 (unix millis) Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:00:00 AM Well done. I immediately thought that having a millisecond granularity of last connection time could be used to roughly correlate who contacted whom, depending on what the "connected" event is considered.
Why have this at all?
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you name some please? Do you mean like ACLU (BCCLA in Canada)
ACLU would be fully onboard with this nowadays, as long as the right groups of people are targeted. ACLUs ship has sailed years ago.
The ACLU are providing legal services to Signal in this case. (See the signatories to Signal's response to the subpoena.)
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#308While I applaud Signal's response I expect this entire event (subpoena and response) will be provided as one of the exhibits to congress by the Department of Justice to justify their request that it be unlawful to provide such services. The DoJ will say, "See, here is this horrible crime we are investigating and because this company chose to make it impossible for law enforcement, with a warrant and a subpoena to get…
This is why there should not be a single entity that runs the network. Make it fully decentralized with economic incentives for node operators. some projects trying to do this now are Status, Session, Sylo
That already exists, it's called the Internet
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#309While I applaud Signal's response I expect this entire event (subpoena and response) will be provided as one of the exhibits to congress by the Department of Justice to justify their request that it be unlawful to provide such services. The DoJ will say, "See, here is this horrible crime we are investigating and because this company chose to make it impossible for law enforcement, with a warrant and a subpoena to get…
Making this unlawful would violate the constitution. People are already upset at the Federal Government, now isn't the time for more bullshit.
Why would it be unconstitutional? Which provision would such a law contravene?
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
From my understanding the ACLU used to stand for the civil rights of everybody and even defended KKK members. But now they have taken sides on various social justice movements and targeted groups that oppose these sides. Instead of fighting for civil rights like they used to, they pick and choose which rights they think are okay to violate if it's for the "right cause". It goes completely against their old motto.
Except that's not exactly true; here is a counterexample. https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/aclu-backs-n-j-woman...
State chapters of the ACLU have usually been a lot better, the rot is more at the top and with the stands the leadership takes