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

421–430 of 618 posts

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

#421

Post by Marsymars »

teawrecks wrote: post #234
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #23

Beautiful. That's how you do it. I actually believe that law enforcement has the legal right to subpoena information, with a judge's consent, while investigating criminal activity. This is exactly the solution to that problem. These platforms should want to know as little about you as possible.

If neuralink/related tech ever gets to the point of mind-to-mind communication, without a doubt our law enforcement will claim they have the right to subpoena a person's thoughts. We may be setting a precedent now that is more important that we could ever think (pun intended).

That kind of technology would make the issue more obvious, but I already operate under the understanding that people's personal computing devices are effectively extensions of their minds.

I read a good short story on the subject recently, "The Truth of Fact, the Truth of Feeling": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_of_Fact,_the_Truth_o...

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

#422

Post by salawat »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #412
8note wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

This worked so well for everyone involved the first time.

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

#423

Post by AnthonyMouse »

salawat wrote: post #414
_carbyau_ wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't Tor onion services basically work like that already?

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

#424

Post by AnthonyMouse »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #341
nnutter wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU is not what it once was. I will not donate to them. Even the EFF is growing questionable. I would definitely be curious what recommendations people have.

The EFF takes weird policy positions. They're against speed cameras, but in favor of the status quo (police with guns manually pulling people over for speeding in cities).

That isn't a weird policy position. The speed cameras do ALPR and can store all the results, so they build a location history of all the vehicles that weren't even breaking the law. That's bad.

It's also bad that cops pull people over arbitrarily, but that's not the part in the EFF's bailiwick, and there are other solutions than putting ALPR cameras everywhere.

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

#425

Post by tekknik »

kelnos wrote: post #318
willhinsa wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My free speech rights are being threatened. Does it matter what identity merit badges I own to have rights? You may be surprised what group I ostensibly am one of, and yet I find their pushing of this anti-free speech to be atrocious.

Asking people to not be transphobic threatens your free speech rights? Way to take something not even remotely about you and get offended by it.

Perhaps it’s offensive to the other side being forced to accept someone born the opposite sex as exactly equivalent? Perhaps it has nothing to do with judging them or their lifestyle? Perhaps by the same logic they shouldn’t care about grouping themselves forcibly into a group their offending at least some of the members of?

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

#426

Post by thegrimmest »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #412
8note wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I don't think any quotes are required around the research performed by Rushton & Jensen (2010)[1] and others that they build on. Doesn't it seem perfectly plausible that, much like other physical characteristics (height, body composition, heat tolerance, etc.) the meat in our skulls also varies between ethnic groups? Shouldn't this be researched and investigated like every other observation?

Once you start studying groups by linguistic origin (not "race") things become much clearer since people historically didn't really move around that much, and genetic markers are quite visible (a la 23andMe). I don't think you need to be a Nazi or a troll to be interested in any of this.

1. https://openpsychologyjournal.com/contents/volumes/V3/TOPSYJ...

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

#427

Post by arminiusreturns »

ddtaylor wrote: post #207
arminiusreturns wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal is the best we have on mobile at the moment in my estimation, but after a cursory analysis of Moxy, I totally expect one day it will be revealed he has been compromised somehow. Nation state actors already have baseband roots, so as long as those arent your threat vector, you are probably, maybe, ok on signal. I find it really interesting that Bill Binney says, despite years of me hearing the opposite, that we…

> Signal is the best we have on mobile at the moment Matrix is pretty good.

Its been a while, Ill have to check it out again. Thanks for the suggestion.

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

#428

Post by AnthonyMouse »

zarzavat wrote: post #408
poszlem wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The paradox of tolerance arises because (neo)nazis want to abolish free speech

The argument you're making is that free speech is important so we need to protect it by censoring people who advocate imposing censorship.

But then you're advocating imposing censorship, which implies you should censor yourself. Which is why it's a paradox.

You still have to choose between "don't censor things" and "censor things" with the knowledge that if you choose "censor things" it's not just you who will be adding to the list of banned knowledge.

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

#429

Post by lazide »

dane-pgp wrote: post #356
lazide wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oldie but a goodie, and I doubt the numbers have improved - but essentially they are never denied for FISA at least. Which is basically the definition of rubber stamping no? [ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/articl... ]

The obvious counter-argument, unfortunately, is that the government has a clear idea of which requests the FISA court would reject, and therefore never bothers making such requests. That would mean the court is correctly preventing executive overreach and there's nothing to worry about.

Even agents randomly screwing up would produce higher reject rates - 99%+ approval rates practically means no one is even looking no?

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

#430

Post by AnthonyMouse »

salawat wrote: post #422
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

This worked so well for everyone involved the first time.

The first time the Nazis imposed censorship so that people couldn't do that. We should be wary of following in those footsteps.
Post reply on HN