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

Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 618 posts

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#311

Post by ajsnigrutin »

willhinsa wrote: post #280
chrononaut wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am out of the loop on this one. What has the ACLU become today, and why is the EFF growing questionable?

For the ACLU, they have lost the institutional interest in fighting for free speech. Fighting for the rights of digital Nazis to march, so to speak, is not something the ACLU defends today. Here's a recent NYT article discussing this change in the organization: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

Yep... once noone defends the nazis, anyone can be branded a nazi, and you lose one more right (free speech).

And sadly, the word 'nazi' has lost all of it's meaning in the last years, and has gone from swastika carrying Hitler supporters to someone who doesn't want illegals working below minimum wage to take his job.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#312

Post by ajsnigrutin »

skoskie wrote: post #193
arthur_sav wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing any company can do about that. Spying programs and laws will only worsen unless people really voice their concerns and elect the right people.

Except Apple is making a direct attempt at solving the issue as it relates to CSAM (and easily expanded to other data) and facing a huge backlash. I wonder if there’s no solution because we’re (myself included) are just stubbornly unwilling to consider any solution that isn’t absolute privacy. I’m not willing to sacrifice my privacy to a nosy government, but willing to consider solutions that might allow the governme…

This is like having a camera in your house, that does image recognition, and once it thinks it saw something illegal, sends the "something is happening at XY street" to the police. Does it help the government solve crimes? Sure. Is it creepy and intrusive, and not something anyone sane would accept? Yes.

I don't know why we accept the same things when we're talking about digital privacy.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#313

Post by [deleted] »

smoyer wrote: post #278
ChuckMcM wrote: post #119

While 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!

[deleted]

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#314

Post by strictfp »

jojobas wrote: post #228
ranger_danger wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps more likely, they'll go the lavabit/CALEA route, and order that their platform be modified to allow wiretapping, at which point Signal must choose between either complying with such requests, or going out of business. If that happens, hopefully usage of p2p messaging apps like Briar or Status will gain more traction and usage.

>complying with such requests, or going out of business Complying with such a request is going out of business.

Press x to doubt

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#315

Post by judge2020 »

anubiskhan wrote: post #160
Thorentis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised the FBI has tried to get a custom keyboard into the Play Store yet, or asked Google to add a key logger to the stock one. Sure, the legality is blury at the moment , but it's just a matter of changing some laws and then that becomes legal.

I thought google collects everything put into Gboard anyway? (Maybe just if swipe is enabled)

If you want to call it that, perhaps. The actual tech: https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/federated-learning-collabo...

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#316

Post by lazide »

davidw wrote: post #82
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a dead end with Signal. But it requires field work, as they used to do 50 years ago. Now, cops and politicians want to solve all the problems from their desk. No, sorry, my freedom is not to be sold for their convenience. You want to catch a bad guy, you get a trained investigation team that follows people, that wires their house, that interrogates neighborhood, etc. Is it more work ? Yes. Is it more dangero…

> What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people There's a subpoena in this process that you're glossing over. You can argue that's too easy or too secretive or something, and that's more than fair, but it's not just 'clicking a button'.

Have you heard about parallel construction [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction] and AT&T’s room 641a? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A]

Those are the tip of the iceberg.

If there is an automated way to get this data, the agencies will do it, and then retroactively generate the paperwork to make it look ok in court if they feel it’s worth their time.

If structurally there is no privacy except some friction with generating paperwork, then we already have solid evidence here in the US in modern times that you defacto have no privacy.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#317

Post by freeopinion »

ineedasername wrote: post #302
Bud wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As soon as you identify a label that can be used to deny free speech, that label will be applied to everything and everybody in an effort to deny free speech. It is extremely important to defend free speech. Some people get confused and think that a defense of free speech is a defense of the label.

Historically, the ACLU is one of the most well known organizations to defend free speech regardless of label. They should not create such a gaping vulnerability in their strategy.

Don't announce to the world that any case involving the word "crypto" will not be defended. Or the words "carpentry", "space", or "elephant". The issue should be free speech, not miscellaneous labels.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#318

Post by kelnos »

willhinsa wrote: post #282
Bud wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, you're transphobic and you think everyone else should go along with you. To put it rather mildly, that's not what ACLU is about and that's not even what they should be about. You don't get to decide what is "really" about freedom. You shouldn't try. Leave that to the people whose rights are being threatened in the specific case in question.

My free speech rights are being threatened. Does it matter what identity merit badges I own to have rights? You may be surprised what group I ostensibly am one of, and yet I find their pushing of this anti-free speech to be atrocious.

Asking people to not be transphobic threatens your free speech rights? Way to take something not even remotely about you and get offended by it.

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#319

Post by lazide »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #138
surge wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Often done in secret with the barest of oversight. A warrant requires a bit more justification at least.

> Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Do you have a source for that?

Oldie but a goodie, and I doubt the numbers have improved - but essentially they are never denied for FISA at least. Which is basically the definition of rubber stamping no? [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/articl...]

Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California

#320

Post by systemvoltage »

nnutter wrote: post #214
mooneater wrote: post #202

Earlier 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.

FIRE is a good one: https://www.thefire.org/

There are many in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_rights_organiza...

I usually never express it but this kind of stuff makes me proud of being an American. We need to double down on CR non-partisanly and non-negotiably.

Post reply on HN