Live data from Hacker News

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

signal.org

41–50 of 618 posts

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

#41
post #8

surely signal has at least the IP address used to connect to their service? aren't they by law required to log that?

Which law requires you to log the IP address used to connect to your service?

In the EU, I'm afraid, the answer would be: plenty. Look at French law for instance.

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

#42
post #22

What I don't understand about the whole Signal E2EE model is that while your messages themselves may be encrypted, they are still sending push notifications over Apple's servers, which have to go through APNS. Often the entire message contents can be contained in the push notification. Does anybody know if Apple's notifications are E2EE? I doubt that gov't doesn't have access to the push notifications...

[deleted]

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

#43
post #35
post #22

What I don't understand about the whole Signal E2EE model is that while your messages themselves may be encrypted, they are still sending push notifications over Apple's servers, which have to go through APNS. Often the entire message contents can be contained in the push notification. Does anybody know if Apple's notifications are E2EE? I doubt that gov't doesn't have access to the push notifications...

I believe they are encrypted (and decrypted on device by the Signal app). They recently had to do some rewriting of the code for iOS15 - they share some comments about that here: https://community.signalusers.org/t/beta-feedback-for-the-up... Hope it helps Edit: wow people were fast to reply…

Sweet, thanks for the link to that discussion. Looks like they're handling it :)

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

#44
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s uncharitable. Everyone is going through the motions required of them, and this is the public demonstration of those mechanizations (although Signal is a bit cheeky, which is fun). The next step would be government requiring, through legislation, more invasive logging and data collection (Australia and parts of Europe have already seen the beginnings of this discussion) of messaging apps (“we’ve asked f…

Isn't this what happened to Protonmail? They were required by legal order to start logging activity for a specific group of users. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the govt could try to force a company to either start logging Signal metadata or provide a backdoored app to a user. Not that it would necessarily work, but I do expect them to try at some point.

[deleted]

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

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A judge can sign an order commanding a witness or party to preserve documentation and evidence, under penalty of contempt of court. However, there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to what actions the subject of the subpoena must take in order to preserve that evidence. It's pretty clear that you have to disable automated destruction mechanisms, you can't disable any recording functions you may already have, an…

Sadly, not an open question in the UK.

What's the law in the UK, out of curiosity?

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

#48

Reminds me to donate to Signal again

Speaking of donations (a guy from a food bank whom I see in the Safeway parking lot didn't know this, so I think we can assume not everyone does): Most "donate" pages do not allow for "donor-advised funds (DAF)." They assume you're giving it with your before-tax money and presumably taking a tax deduction for it. In a DAF, which your financial institution surely offers, you can donate appreciated assets, e.g. your FA…

Another benefit, it sounds like, is that you don't have to pay capital gains on selling those shares.

Like, let's say your intent is to donate $10k to some charity, out of the goodness of your heart and/or as a tax write off. You don't have that in cash, but do in stock.

You could liquidate $10k of stock, pay capital gains on it (if it appreciated since acquisition), then donate it. So you're out the capital gains tax.

The method you describe seems more efficient, since you don't need to sell; you simply transfer ownership of the asset.

Or is there still capital gains to be paid?

I wonder if billionaires are setting up charities as trusts for their kids, then "donating their shares to charity?"

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

#49
It’s easy so say net win for society is privacy. But it’s important to also acknowledge it does come at a cost — there exists criminal behavior that most reasonable people would agree is bad and should be stopped that may reach a dead end with services like Signal. In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem, you are suggesting there shouldn’t be ways to uncover crimes.

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

#50

Does Signal notify the relevant users regarding subpoena? The FBI request asks them not to but only says "Please do not", hardly required it seems

It's required. There are statutes tying disclosure of subpoenas to Obstruction charges. This is not a new issue; subpoena secrecy was a thing before there was an Internet.
Post reply on HN