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

411–420 of 618 posts

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

#411

Post by artificial »

matt123456789 wrote: post #406
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.

How do you feel about presidential pardons? Basically sudo for getting around the legal system.

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

#412

Post by AnthonyMouse »

8note wrote: post #398
thegrimmest wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

The question is, what do you do when they gain power?

You prevent them from gaining power by winning debates against them and demonstrating to everyone why they're wrong.

I mean have you actually seen the "science" used to claim even the existence of different races? It's all misleading statistics and pseudoscience. You group a bunch of people together based on geographical origin and then observe some differences in the averages between the two groups, ignoring that the differences within each "race" are larger than the differences between "races," and that the lines are being drawn arbitrarily, and that even the measured averages could be different as a result of environment or culture rather than genetics.

There is no way for a Nazi to win that on the facts because the facts are against them. Which is why they have so little actual support. There are probably more trolls pretending to be Nazis than there are actual Nazis.

They're used as the boogeyman specifically because there is such widespread agreement that they're wrong.

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

#413

Post by shakna »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #397
acjohnson55 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Honestly I’m surprised it’s legal to run a Tor exit-node at all given the sheer volume of morally reprehensible things that go through it - regardless of its utility for journalistic freedom.

Tor was created for the US Navy to hide their intelligence operatives and wouldn't work for that purpose without the rest of that noise. It requires that everyone uses it for anyone to reasonably be considered hidden.

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

#414

Post by salawat »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #361
personjerry wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That already exists, it's called the Internet

The issue is the internet doesn't provide the required service for individuals to find each other directly. We need DNS for everyone, not just the rich...er those bothering to register a name. Make it GUID based, and let people contact each other by GUID instead of phone number. Preferably add privacy enhancing encryption too so that only those with your public key could decrypt your GUID DNS entry to then find your…

as soon as you create a namespace like that, you've made the lever that will be utilized for centralized control. In reality, if you had no chance of getting somewhere without the centralized registry, you don't have the connection.

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

#415

Post by temp_praneshp »

systemvoltage wrote: post #340
temp_praneshp wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Thanks!

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

#416

Post by tadfisher »

d4mi3n wrote: post #95
davidw wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'.

This is only true if the companies you're asking for data refuse to provide it _without_ a subpoena. Many companies (let's us AT&T as an example) will provide law enforcement whatever data they ask for without requiring a subpoena.

Bad example: regulate telecommunications companies are required by statute to provide certain information on request. A better example is Amazon with their law enforcement partnerships through Ring.

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

#417

Post by tekknik »

8note wrote: post #398
thegrimmest wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

The question is, what do you do when they gain power?

Counter their arguments better so they don’t.

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

#418

Post by mal10c »

Good for signal but if I were going to play devil's advocate, I would put myself in the shoes of folks in the government that want this information... I would contact Google or Apple and ask them to throw in some non-advertised APIs that take and then send screenshots of the signal app from the OS to a central server. Put another way, if the OS isn't fully trusted, it's still game over, even with all of the encryption in the world.

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

#419

Post by ineedasername »

repsilat wrote: post #352
ineedasername wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

There appear to be two different rights in conflict there, so there's some complexity to the situation.

On the one hand there's the teachers' free speech rights, freedom from compelled speech. On the other hand are the students' civil rights protecting against discrimination.

The ACLU in that situation has decided the later should prevail over the former when it pertains to government workers & their speech while on-the-job.

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

#420

Post by rlt »

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…

(This is not advice to seek out these things)

In reality most people aren’t going to (or rather, shouldn’t try to) seek out drug dealers and prostitutes on the street. For the former it’s more likely someone will “know a guy who knows a guy”, or maybe use the dark web. For the latter there are websites and classifieds, you just need to know the right terminology, etc (from what I’ve gathered, I have no personal experience...)

So yeah, it’s underground, but not that underground.

Post reply on HN