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

401–410 of 618 posts

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

#401

Post by [deleted] »

meowface wrote: post #394
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…

>Will you consent to mandatory surveillance of all law enforcement officers that is recorded and stored in a civil controlled repository so that officer conduct may be reviewed at any time? I think this should be implemented regardless. But the danger is they can easily say "sure; your turn". Some in law enforcement may even genuinely want to do that for its own sake. I think that's a totally orthogonal thing to viol…

[deleted]

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

#402

Post by pennaMan »

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…

I would go further and ask for mandatory 24/7 surveillance of elected officials for transparency and to combat corruption every time they bring up this bullshit.

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

#403

Post by repsilat »

monetus wrote: post #389
repsilat wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they cannot fight every single fight I think "failing to support" in the grandparent comment is too weak for some. This is Glenn Greenwald on a recent ACLU amicus brief[1]: >> This is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that ACLU is explicitly arguing in court that the First Amendment's free speech clause has been interpreted *too broadly* by courts, and are advocating *a more restrictive view* of what free s…

Does that type of speech, refusing to respect a person's identity, have any additional legal implications being that they seem to be public employees in a public school system? Discrimination as they argue in private businesses versus government ones? IANAL, just curious

The brief summary here[1] implies that's the basis of the ACLU's reasoning:

>> Mr. Cross spoke in opposition to Policy 8040 at a school board meeting, and refused to comply with the provision...

>> While the teachers may disagree with the policy, they do not have the right to violate it in their capacity as K-12 teachers in the Loudoun County school system.

The brief was unclear about whether the teacher refused to comply in the meeting or in another circumstance, and I don't care enough to check sorry.

FWIW, I'm mostly in favour of at-will employment, and think that they should be able to suspend or get rid of him for any reason. And I'm in favour of school choice, and think that if the views of parents and teachers would be better reflected if the government weren't involved. And I'm a cynic, and believe that the only reason anyone's talking about a Virginia school is the governor's race, and it's all just entertainment for people living elsewhere.

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

#404

Post by flipnfloop »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #399
dannyw wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware of how easy it is to find drugs and prostitutes?

Is it? I honestly don’t know. Seriously. I’ve never been offered drugs by anyone in my life and I couldn’t tell you if someone standing on a street-corner is someone simply wanting to cross the street when the lights change or an undercover cop… or an actual prostitute. What am I supposed to be looking for? (Yes, I’m on-the-spectrum and don’t get invited to parties, so I’m not representative of everyone else’s experi…

Come visit San Francisco. Lots of prostitutes on Capp street, and lots of drugs being offered in the Tenderloin.

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

#405

Post by jodrellblank »

pennaMan wrote: post #402
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…

I would go further and ask for mandatory 24/7 surveillance of elected officials for transparency and to combat corruption every time they bring up this bullshit.

In the UK the government introduced a "record of everyone's internet history" law and then exempted themselves from it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13087339

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

#406

Post by matt123456789 »

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…

Yes they fucking should. Nobody should be above the law - nobody. There should not be “two tiers” of law enforcement, be it by class or occupation. Everybody should be held to the same standard.

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

#407

Post by [deleted] »

jodrellblank wrote: post #405
pennaMan wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go further and ask for mandatory 24/7 surveillance of elected officials for transparency and to combat corruption every time they bring up this bullshit.

In the UK the government introduced a "record of everyone's internet history" law and then exempted themselves from it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13087339

[deleted]

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

#408

Post by zarzavat »

poszlem wrote: post #338
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.

The paradox of tolerance arises because (neo)nazis want to abolish free speech, indeed they want to abolish entire groups of people.

What is legally protected as speech and what is actually speech cannot be equal. For instance, speech that involves property damage is not protected, even though that is a common kind of speech in certain circumstances (e.g. graffiti "Romans go home")

Conversely, some groups abuse free speech protections in order to intimidate others, e.g. Westboro Baptist church picketing funerals. I would call this an action because the primary intention is not expression but rather intimidation.

It may be that such actions must be legally recognized as speech in order to maintain the enforceability of speech protections, as intent is a nebulous concept, but it is not obviously so and many jurisdictions don't recognize such things as speech.

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

#409

Post by dcdc123 »

tptacek wrote: post #45
tedivm wrote: post #3

My favorite part of their response is that they gave the timestamps in unix milliseconds.

For anyone curious, the account was created on Dec 1 2020, and last connected this October 13th.

Am I the only one sort of bothered by the fact they shared that specific information with the world? It may not seem like much, but that was user data.

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

#410

Post by nelox »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #399
dannyw wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware of how easy it is to find drugs and prostitutes?

Is it? I honestly don’t know. Seriously. I’ve never been offered drugs by anyone in my life and I couldn’t tell you if someone standing on a street-corner is someone simply wanting to cross the street when the lights change or an undercover cop… or an actual prostitute. What am I supposed to be looking for? (Yes, I’m on-the-spectrum and don’t get invited to parties, so I’m not representative of everyone else’s experi…

Insight, or lack thereof, may be both a blessing and a curse.
Post reply on HN