This makes me so happy
Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
71–80 of 618 posts
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#72I'd love to see how would a similar WhatsApp's response look like.
Probably not the kind of thing they'd brag about in a blog post unfortunately
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#73It’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 end doesn't justify the means. Police in democratic societies have less power on what they are allowed to do in order to stop crimes, uncover crimes or prosecute criminals. Like requiring a search warrant or how long the police can hold you, interrogate you and so forth. But speech in general has always been a private matter, encryption only reinforces the status quo of society.
What argument do you have that less encryption is the preferred solution?
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#74It’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. They’re suggesting that law enforcement should have a valid reason to request someone’s private data such as this process.
You have added that last line yourself, and it appears to suggest that you would prefer all of humanity be constantly surveilled in case it may catch more criminals.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#75It’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.
How many crimes have been prevented in the last 20 years thanks to the surveillance powers of the USA PATRIOT Act? Last I’d heard the answer was zero.
The privacy/security trade-off is vastly overstated.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#76It’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.
This is the cost of abusing the public's willingness to allow certain exceptions to civil liberties. In a society where the public generally trusts the authorities, this problem wouldn't occur. People would almost always be willing to have their communications available for potential judicially-guarded examination, trusting that only justified suspicion of particularly violent crimes will ever be cause for using it.
But when the authorities transgress once too many, the public in general will switch to services that properly defends their privacy.
We can consider this a game-theoretic outcome of abusing the trust of the public. The consequence will eventually be that properly henious criminals will have better tools for not getting caught.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#77It’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.
We end up debating trade-offs where people don't agree.
Privacy with end-to-end encryption keeps everyone's communications safe. Criminals, politicians, people working for government contractors, and everyone else. This means criminals can get away with more things. It also means that politicians and surveillance governments have a harder time monitoring regular people or their government challengers.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#78It’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.
> In formulating your statement that examining criminal behavior is a problem [...]
Who exactly said this? It's rather the other way around: flagrantly examining and being able to examine non-criminal behaviour at a whim is a problem. The excuse of potentially being able to spot criminal behaviour is not enough.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#79It’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.
So there was no crime before Signal? The "I have nothing to hide so I don't care" argument is so shortsighted. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Remember this from the Nazi resistance?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Now is the time to speak out. By the time you want to protest and push back, it could be too late.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#80> Last connection date: 1634169600000 (unix millis) > Account created: 1606866784432 (unix millis) This response of the user information they have is hilarious.
> Last connection date: 1634169600000 (unix millis)
Thu 14 Oct 2021 12:00:00 AM UTC
Do they round?