3 ms·

If they were storing that metadata, they would be lying in the response to their subpoena.

by yincrash 10y ago

CaptSpify 10y ago
That doesn't prove they don't have it though. I'm skeptical of the suggestion as well, but people can lie.
- 5ersi 10y ago
  Since their client apps are OSS you can check yourself: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    But isn't this server-side meta-data, not client-side meta-data? The service still routes through their system.
  - mi100hael 10y ago
    Notably, the source for the voice call server is not available as far as I know, and there's no guarantee that the text messaging server is running in an unaltered state on their production servers.
- verandaguy 10y ago
  Lying in response to a subpoena would be an EXTREMELY unwise move by OWS, or most other bodies in this position.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I don't disagree. But it still doesn't prove that they don't have the data. You can't prove a negative like that.
    - caf 10y ago
      OK, it doesn't prove they don't have the data. It's strong circumstantial evidence that they don't have the data.
guelo 10y ago
I think you misread woah's comment. Signal has access to the metadata but chooses not to store it in order to be able to remain unresponsive to queries like this.
- rurban 10y ago
  So the real threat here is that the FBI wants to come in with a search warrant, install one of their famous splitters (a Windows machine btw) and routes all metadata traffic to the NSA. To legally get contact data in real-time for one criminal under investigation. Essentially the Lavabit case. Or is that what they called PRISM? Legal route splitting at the endpoint, i.e. legally declared as such by the secret FISA court, because there's oversight...
erichocean 10y ago
> they would be lying in the response to their subpoena The court can compel a business (or individual) to lie about that sort of thing.

If they were storing that metadata, they would be lying in the response to their subpoena.

CaptSpify 10y ago

That doesn't prove they don't have it though. I'm skeptical of the suggestion as well, but people can lie.

5ersi 10y ago
Since their client apps are OSS you can check yourself: https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  But isn't this server-side meta-data, not client-side meta-data? The service still routes through their system.
- mi100hael 10y ago
  Notably, the source for the voice call server is not available as far as I know, and there's no guarantee that the text messaging server is running in an unaltered state on their production servers.
verandaguy 10y ago
Lying in response to a subpoena would be an EXTREMELY unwise move by OWS, or most other bodies in this position.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I don't disagree. But it still doesn't prove that they don't have the data. You can't prove a negative like that.
  - caf 10y ago
    OK, it doesn't prove they don't have the data. It's strong circumstantial evidence that they don't have the data.

guelo 10y ago

I think you misread woah's comment. Signal has access to the metadata but chooses not to store it in order to be able to remain unresponsive to queries like this.

rurban 10y ago
So the real threat here is that the FBI wants to come in with a search warrant, install one of their famous splitters (a Windows machine btw) and routes all metadata traffic to the NSA. To legally get contact data in real-time for one criminal under investigation. Essentially the Lavabit case. Or is that what they called PRISM? Legal route splitting at the endpoint, i.e. legally declared as such by the secret FISA court, because there's oversight...

erichocean 10y ago

> they would be lying in the response to their subpoena The court can compel a business (or individual) to lie about that sort of thing.