Live data from Hacker News

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

signal.org

61–70 of 618 posts

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

#61

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.

Agreed, except when the government gets to make that subpoena a state secret

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

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ta…

I think this is what the rich do with art, yes.

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

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you give more specifics? "French law" is quite broad.

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

#64

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.

The widespread abuse of power in government agencies makes this argument a little naive imo. The vast majority of what they do has very little effect on anyone's safety. I'd rather be able to communicate privately and let people keep selling drugs if they want to.

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

#65
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...

Even if the push notifications themselves are encrypted, isn't there still the question of whether Apple store the (App x Notification x User/phone number) graph?

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

#66

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.

No one is suggesting it should be impossible to uncover crimes.

But I’d say that we should work to make it impossible for mass surveillance to exist, full stop.

Police should have to do real actual detective work to implicate people in a crime.

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

#67

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.

They can pull this information from either the sender or any of the recipients phones. If the government knows the sender, they can arrest them and confiscate the phone.

That's reasonable.

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

#68
post #55

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.

Exactly. This same thing happens one time too many, it gets outlawed.

[deleted]

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

#70

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.

It's not a dead end with Signal. But it requires field work, as they used to do 50 years ago.

Now, cops and politicians want to solve all the problems from their desk.

No, sorry, my freedom is not to be sold for their convenience.

You want to catch a bad guy, you get a trained investigation team that follows people, that wires their house, that interrogates neighborhood, etc.

Is it more work ? Yes. Is it more dangerous ? Hell, yes.

But don't say you can't catch criminals because of Signal. What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people. It's a good thing.

This mantra is just an excuse to chew off chunks of democracy.

Post reply on HN