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

331–340 of 618 posts

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

#331

Post by acjohnson55 »

olah_1 wrote: post #270
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…

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

It can be made illegal to be an operator and to use those incentives in the sanctioned marketplace.

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

#332

Post by _kbh_ »

aborsy wrote: post #300

* But FBI has access to Pegasus-like spyware. If you have a phone number, a zero-click NSO spyware would provide full control over target device. * FBI could get user’s data from Apple if it’s an iPhone (considering that iOS is closed source), or force a malicious update to user through so many ways (including by pushing a bad update or manipulating safety numbers in signal). So why asking a messaging app that everyo…

On your second point it seems that Apple is unwilling to assist the FBI with regards to pushing malicious updates to the operating system or apps.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute

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

#333

Post by lekanwang »

mooneater wrote: post #202
Rd6n6 wrote: post #196

Anybody concerned about these issues should consider donating to their favourite non profit that can have an impact that works in the area. Most HN users can afford $20/year pretty easily (others could afford $200/month and not even notice it) As they say, “Put your money where your mouth is.”

Would you name some please? Do you mean like ACLU (BCCLA in Canada)

ACLU, Cato, EFF, and EPIC have all shown real success in legislative efforts and in court.

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

#335

Post by shepherdjerred »

zerobytes wrote: post #268

If we're talking about pure messaging here and not sending a jpg or other attachment, why not create an app that simply uses plaintext, like a terminal. Generate some 4096 bit keys and make it decentralised. Public keys could be shared among people willing to communicate. Anytime you have a central location where data is parsed, the time stamps and other metadata can be gleaned. The app could even fudge time stamps.…

> 1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.

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

#336

Post by ekianjo »

olah_1 wrote: post #270
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…

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

Signal fights decentralization anyway so they are not a reliable actor.

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

#337

Post by temp_praneshp »

systemvoltage wrote: post #323
tylerhou wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that's not exactly true; here is a counterexample. https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/aclu-backs-n-j-woman...

General trend has been that they've become more lopsided due to their donor demographics and having to serve them. Providing one counter example doesn't disprove it.

Is there something I can read that establishes the general trend? I know there was a recent leaked memo, but it seems like a weak way to establish general trend.

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

#338

Post by poszlem »

zarzavat wrote: post #327

[flagged]

This is a distortion of the paradox of tolerance, it doesn't endorse censorship. The paradox of tolerance only comes into play when views start getting translated into actions. Let the Nazis march down Skokie. Action should only be taken against them if they start acting on their views. Removal only happens in the interest of self-preservation. The paradox of tolerance is not an endorsement of censorship.

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

#340

Post by systemvoltage »

temp_praneshp wrote: post #337
systemvoltage wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General trend has been that they've become more lopsided due to their donor demographics and having to serve them. Providing one counter example doesn't disprove it.

Is there something I can read that establishes the general trend? I know there was a recent leaked memo, but it seems like a weak way to establish general trend.

'Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis'

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html

Post reply on HN