Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#551

Post by Scrounger »

kodyo wrote: post #60
psunavy03 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DOD is not using "flagrantly using Signal." The Secretary of Defense, whatever his preferred pronouns are, is breaking the law.

CISA recommended Signal for encrypted end-to-end communications for "highly targeted individuals." https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/guidance-mo...

I don't think I agree with the following from this guide:

> Do not use a personal virtual private network (VPN). Personal VPNs simply shift residual risks from your internet service provider (ISP) to the VPN provider, often increasing the attack surface. Many free and commercial VPN providers have questionable security and privacy policies. However, if your organization requires a VPN client to access its data, that is a different use case.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#552

Post by freejazz »

spiderice wrote: post #424
hackyhacky wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds good, until you realize that they've now murdered two peaceful protesters, who they post facto smear as terrorists to justify their murder.

[flagged]

"fucking bitch" right?

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#553

Post by trhway »

mw888 wrote: post #523

There seems to be wild speculation about freedom of speech rights or hacking Signal. The FBI simply joined groupchats and read them. This is trivial stuff.

>The FBI simply

i don't think an investigation by FBI has ever been "simply" to the subjects of such an investigation. And to show bang-for-the-buck the "simply reading chat" officers would have to bring at least some fish, i.e. federal charges, from such a reading expedition.

In general it sounds very familiar - any opposition is a crime of impeding and obstruction. Just like in Russia where any opposition is a crime of discreditation at best or even worse - a crime of extremism/terrorism/treason.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#555

Post by webdoodle »

longitudinal93 wrote: post #541
heavyset_go wrote: post #521

This is one of the reasons it's crucial that the next set of secure messaging systems does away with tying real phone numbers to accounts. One phone gets compromised and the whole network is identified with their phone numbers.

Hiding your phone number is a setting now. Has been for well over a year.

Can you easily sign up without a phone number though?

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#556

Post by herewulf »

driverdan wrote: post #486
bs7280 wrote: post #19

A wise man told me, you know signal works because its banned in Russia. I also find it incredibly ironic that they have a problem with this, when the DoD is flagrantly using signal for classified communications.

I have full confidence in Signal and their encryption but this argument doesn't make sense to me. It could be the opposite, that Russia knows it's compromised by the US government and don't want people using it. I don't believe that's the case but the point is you can't put too much weight on it.

Wouldn't the Russian government just say that then?

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#557

Post by heavyset_go »

longitudinal93 wrote: post #541
heavyset_go wrote: post #521

This is one of the reasons it's crucial that the next set of secure messaging systems does away with tying real phone numbers to accounts. One phone gets compromised and the whole network is identified with their phone numbers.

Hiding your phone number is a setting now. Has been for well over a year.

You can't sign up without one, and it being an option means people who are in danger won't do it.

Also, if someone's phone is confiscated, and you're in their Signal chats and their address book, it doesn't matter if you're hiding your number on Signal.

It's better to just not require such identifying information at all.

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#558

Post by karlzt »

webdoodle wrote: post #555
longitudinal93 wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hiding your phone number is a setting now. Has been for well over a year.

Can you easily sign up without a phone number though?

No. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45454478

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#559

Post by lovich »

jatora wrote: post #494
lovich wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Citizens of law enforcement” What a phrase

you're aware that LEO are citizens right? with rights as well?

The comment was trying to replicate the same feelings as “people of color” but in regards to a lifestyle choice instead of an immutable characteristic, hence my flabbergasted statement at the audacity

Re: FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE

#560

Post by Braxton1980 »

jatora wrote: post #490
janalsncm wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we’re getting rid of the first amendment maybe we should also get rid of the fourth and fifth amendment too since they make law enforcement harder? I’m sure cops in North Korea have a much easier and safer job.

So are you saying that the first amendment should protect government insiders leaking personal employee info to the public for the purposes of endangering those government employees, and to cause harm to their families? based on subjective opinions on whether the people think the actions of said employees are just or unjust? That's wild if so. That's quite the precedent to set. Note: I don't support ice or their acti…

> for the purposes of endangering those government employees, and to cause harm to their families?

Isn't this also subjective and depends on the information leaked.

Post reply on HN