8 ms·

>mostly anonymous >(but not subpoena-proof) Then it's not anonymous, "mostly" or otherwise. Any entity that is either subject to CALEA, or behaves as if it's

>mostly anonymous >(but not subpoena-proof) Then it's not anonymous, "mostly" or otherwise. Any entity that is either subject to CALEA, or behaves as if it's subject to CALEA, is not your friend. Note that Twilio, although not subject to CALEA, still behaves as if it is, bending over backward to honor any and all "lawful requests" for customer information, and requiring PII on account signup: https://www.twilio.com/legal/law-enforcement-guidelines https://www.twilio.com/legal/law-enforcement-guidelines

bdcravens 9y ago
I meant in the general use case, where I talk/text a random person and then "burn" the number.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  I don't think that's what most people think when they hear "burner phone".
justin66 9y ago
A valid search warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent state warrant procedures upon a showing of probable cause is required to compel Twilio to provide the contents of communications sent or received through Twilio’s products or services. How utterly unreasonable. Yeah, the man is totally trying to keep you down through Twilio.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  No, that wasn't the point. The claim was that Twilio was "mostly anonymous", which isn't true.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    If you're not a member operating under the criminal or civil justice system in the United States, it might be anonymous enough. Anonymous "enough" is all you'll usually get anyway. If you want to get technical, there's no such thing as true anonymity. Of course, whether or not "enough is enough" is, as always, going to depend on your threat model.
  - justin66 9y ago
    > The claim was that Twilio was "mostly anonymous", which isn't true. If you accept that anonymity isn't a purely true/false proposition, which you are doing by using the word "mostly," having your identity only available to law enforcement after a court order has been issued seems like a textbook instance of "mostly anonymous."
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dahauns 9y ago
      >having your identity only available to law enforcement after a court order or after a security breach...or after access by a third party without a court order (however unlawful it might be)...
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Aren't we comparing this to a cell phone and service I could buy from CVS with cash and no ID?
      - justin66 9y ago
        Possibly? In this sort of continuum of anonymity we're talking about, that's probably a lot more anonymous (but it isn't fully anonymous unless you're paying someone else to buy the phone for you in a different city, and they don't know who you are, and probably some other things I'm not paranoid enough to think of). It's still fine to say Twilio is "mostly anonymous," and objecting to that - that Twilio is "mostly anonymous" - on the basis that law enforcement can find out who you are with a court order is very silly. As if a service that requires due process of law to uncover any information about you is morally or practically equivalent to having your name and address in the white pages.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        It's not any more anonymous than any other cell phone if "anonymous" simply means it's not listed anywhere.

bdcravens 9y ago

I meant in the general use case, where I talk/text a random person and then "burn" the number.

ceejayoz 9y ago
I don't think that's what most people think when they hear "burner phone".

justin66 9y ago

A valid search warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent state warrant procedures upon a showing of probable cause is required to compel Twilio to provide the contents of communications sent or received through Twilio’s products or services. How utterly unreasonable. Yeah, the man is totally trying to keep you down through Twilio.

madeofpalk 9y ago
No, that wasn't the point. The claim was that Twilio was "mostly anonymous", which isn't true.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  If you're not a member operating under the criminal or civil justice system in the United States, it might be anonymous enough. Anonymous "enough" is all you'll usually get anyway. If you want to get technical, there's no such thing as true anonymity. Of course, whether or not "enough is enough" is, as always, going to depend on your threat model.
- justin66 9y ago
  > The claim was that Twilio was "mostly anonymous", which isn't true. If you accept that anonymity isn't a purely true/false proposition, which you are doing by using the word "mostly," having your identity only available to law enforcement after a court order has been issued seems like a textbook instance of "mostly anonymous."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dahauns 9y ago
    >having your identity only available to law enforcement after a court order or after a security breach...or after access by a third party without a court order (however unlawful it might be)...
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Aren't we comparing this to a cell phone and service I could buy from CVS with cash and no ID?
    - justin66 9y ago
      Possibly? In this sort of continuum of anonymity we're talking about, that's probably a lot more anonymous (but it isn't fully anonymous unless you're paying someone else to buy the phone for you in a different city, and they don't know who you are, and probably some other things I'm not paranoid enough to think of). It's still fine to say Twilio is "mostly anonymous," and objecting to that - that Twilio is "mostly anonymous" - on the basis that law enforcement can find out who you are with a court order is very silly. As if a service that requires due process of law to uncover any information about you is morally or practically equivalent to having your name and address in the white pages.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        It's not any more anonymous than any other cell phone if "anonymous" simply means it's not listed anywhere.