Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
1–10 of 226 posts
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#2Page 8 of that subpoena says the document files produced must have the extension "*.TIF". (note asterisk)
I wonder how they'd like it if you sent them files literally named
FILE001.PAGE001.*.TIF
It's very important to follow the instructions exactly when you are legally compelled to do something!
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#3Let's see if they try to search the Signal servers for any evidence. And if there is really no information stored.
Or if that will disrupt Signal services. The central, non-distributed architecture is always a big concern against Signal.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#4So as I type this, Signal have two stories in top-10 on HN: more coverage of Signal's Cellebrite Hack, and this.
Are they connected?
Signal gets this subpoena on the 29th March, and the reply by ACLU is on the 12th April.
Signal's founder and CEO, Moxie Marlinspike, hacked Cellebrite and the story surfaced this week.
Was it retaliation? Was it just because the subpoena made him wonder? Or is there something else causing Moxie to lash out at Cellebrite about now? Or was it all chance?
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#5Page 8 of that subpoena says the document files produced must have the extension "*.TIF". (note asterisk) I wonder how they'd like it if you sent them files literally named FILE001.PAGE001.*.TIF (the rest of the specified file format structure notwithstanding) It's very important to follow the instructions exactly when you are legally compelled to do something!
Q: "Why did you send us BPGs[0] named .TIF?"
A: "Because you specified an extension, not a file format."
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#6Funny that they give all information they have about these accounts not just to the court, but even make it public. Page 3 of the response PDF shows the registration and last connection time stamps (all of which are between April and December 2020).
Is this an elegant way to notify those six users?
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#7Page 8 of that subpoena says the document files produced must have the extension "*.TIF". (note asterisk) I wonder how they'd like it if you sent them files literally named FILE001.PAGE001.*.TIF (the rest of the specified file format structure notwithstanding) It's very important to follow the instructions exactly when you are legally compelled to do something!
Q: "Why did you send us BPGs[0] named .TIF?" A: "Because you specified an extension, not a file format." [0] https://bellard.org/bpg/
That will be 30 days in county jail, adios.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#8Funny that they give all information they have about these accounts not just to the court, but even make it public. Page 3 of the response PDF shows the registration and last connection time stamps (all of which are between April and December 2020). Is this an elegant way to notify those six users?
I don't think so. I've tried a few last connection dates and they're all over 6 months in the past. Odds are they're burner numbers based on that alone.
For example, last number last connected on Sep 13, 2020 (they're just dates, no time info stored), while the account was created on July 7th, 2020 at 16:15:37. Knowing the number's without Internet access for over half a year, person in question is probably unable to compare the creation date and time to the SMS received from Signal.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#9Let's see if they try to search the Signal servers for any evidence. And if there is really no information stored. Or if that will disrupt Signal services. The central, non-distributed architecture is always a big concern against Signal.
Agreed. I really wish they would go decentralised. If they did, I'd order up my 1gbit/1gbit dedicated link at the office and offer it up immediately.
Re: Grand jury subpoena for Signal user data, Central District of California
#10This sort of subpoena clearly shows one of two things: 1. the government/law enforcement really don't have any idea how technology works; 2. they don't care and they're just trying their luck anyway.
Either or it shows how tone deaf the state is when it comes to modern technologies.