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

371–380 of 618 posts

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

#371

Post by hnuser847 »

elliekelly wrote: post #291
lettergram wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped supporting the ACLU when they started doing this: Fighting against due process: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/see-you-court-aclu-sues... claiming there's no men: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1196877415810813955 and this: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1199725066302308354 Telling families to discuss pronouns: https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1250795126584217602 and this: https://twitter.com/ACLU/st…

The tweet in which you allege they’re “claiming there’s [sic] no men” is actually saying the exact opposite? It’s saying there are many different types of men.

A man is an adult male human.

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

#372

Post by jojobas »

strictfp wrote: post #314
jojobas wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Press x to doubt

Signal's userbase is different from Whatsapp's, they made a conscious decision to put up with some of the inconveniences for ultimate privacy. Once the canary is out they'll leave.

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

#373

Post by pabs3 »

arendtio wrote: post #303
smoyer wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

They probably reduce the precision to give some plausible deniability in the face of people who have their network connections monitored.

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

#374

Post by hkt »

int_19h wrote: post #363
ASalazarMX wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech is such a bizarre thing in USA. I understand citizens need the right to voice their opinion without fear of government repression; but citizens shouldn't believe they have the right to insult and behave antisocially to other citizens. Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens.

"Shouldn't behave antisocially", as in e.g. that whole asbo thing that the Brits had until very recently? I'm very glad US doesn't have anything like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour_order

Fun summary:

Civil order that it is a crime to breach. So you could get slapped with one on "balance of probabilities" while becoming criminalised for something fairly arbitrary like entering an area or being drunk. I seem to recall somebody was given an ASBO forbidding them from having noisy sex - which they subsequently did and then faced criminal sanction.

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

#375

Post by alfiedotwtf »

dane-pgp wrote: post #350
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The Internet may interpret censorship as damage and route around it, but spy agencies interpret laws as inconveniences and ignore them. As access closes in one place (i.e application layer), they will just get closer to the source (i.e operating system or supply chain)

I fully believe that by the end of the decade it will be illegal in some Western countries to go online with a device that doesn't provide a measured boot attestation that it is running a government-approved operating system.

I'm not sure why I was downvoted, but I believe this too.

Same goes for music and video - we won't be legally allowed to hear and watch non-DRM-playable devices as the speakers and displays will be rented not owned by corporations.

We have almost arrived at the Rental Economy, where we dont own anything and are at the behest of corporations. It's modern serfdom

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

#376

Post by monksy »

tylerhou wrote: post #298
Fogest wrote: post #281

Earlier 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...

Was in 2017, but things probably have changed: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-could-you-represen...

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

#377

Post by thegrimmest »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #344
Meekro wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since several people are asking why the ACLU isn't what it once was, let me answer that. In 1978, the ACLU successfully defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois. This action reflected their commitment to free speech, regardless of how offensive the speech might be. The movie "Skokie" and documentary "Mighty Ira" are based on this event-- I highly recommend them bec…

Freedom of speech is such a bizarre thing in USA. I understand citizens need the right to voice their opinion without fear of government repression; but citizens shouldn't believe they have the right to insult and behave antisocially to other citizens. Any kind of white supremacist behavior is not something to be treasured as freedom, because that enables their harmful behavior against other citizens.

It's only freedom of speech if it protects speech which is actually controversial. This isn't high school. People should have the right to give offense and behave antisocially, if for no other reason than because there is no one who can be trusted with the power to determine what falls into these extremely arbitrary and subjective categories.

Yes we should tolerate the speech of white supremacists and other hateful characters, because the alternative is to see reasonable statements lumped in with them. Where we should draw a clear and sharp line is at violence.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." - William Blackstone

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

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

#378

Post by 0xdeadb00f »

chrononaut wrote: post #287
webmobdev wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does American law even allow such warrants? Even worse - American laws allow the US government agencies to actually access the servers directly (or even add other servers or routers) in the data centre of the service provider, and the service provider is legally obliged to not tell anyone about it!

Out of interest, is there a place where this practice doesn't exist (genuinely don't know), where service providers are allowed to tell targets they are being subject to a warrant?

To not really answer your question, this kinda thing AFAIK can also happen in Australia.

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

#379

Post by dane-pgp »

kilna wrote: post #150
azinman2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be curious where you've heard that from, because the results will largely be kept secret. Regardless, there are far more ordinary crimes being committed than terrorism.

Those who want to keep the current draconian status quo in place are incentivized to make public any wins, it would justify the existence of the extreme measures. The fact that they haven't boasted about any win is telling.

Yes, and we should also be aware of a rhetorical strategy used by surveillance state apologists where they alternate between "The lack of recent terrorist attacks proves that mass surveillance works, so we should extend it to fight other crimes" and "The recent attack shows that we need more surveillance powers to protect ourselves".

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

#380

Post by thegrimmest »

hnuser847 wrote: post #371
elliekelly wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tweet in which you allege they’re “claiming there’s [sic] no men” is actually saying the exact opposite? It’s saying there are many different types of men.

A man is an adult male human.

Indeed, much like a bull is an adult male cattle or a rooster an adult male chicken. Can someone please reply with a clear description of why this isn't true?
Post reply on HN