2 ms·

As we seem to be discussing the Gizmodo article in addition to the post from Moxie, I'm going to copy & paste my thoughts from the other thread: While this rep

by Malp 5y ago

As we seem to be discussing the Gizmodo article in addition to the post from Moxie, I'm going to copy & paste my thoughts from the other thread: While this report is entertaining to read, I have to wonder about possible downstream repercussions of the implications within the last paragraph; if you're in police custody or worse and your Signal app contains some 'aesthetically pleasing files' that interfere with the authoritarian software, it's likely going to be your ass on the line for all sorts of charges. Don't get me wrong, the implication is enough to discredit Cellebrite, but my initial thoughts are that either this bluff gets called, or there's a non-zero risk of someone landing in even hotter water down for using Signal. Of course, this assumes that you're not already neck-deep for having encrypted data and upholding your right to privacy.

cstejerean 5y ago
I don't see why it would be your fault. You or your lawyer can point to this very blog post to demonstrate that any interference with Cellebrite was not intentional on your part.
- Malp 5y ago
  Could a party not argue that knowingly using software with functionality that interfered with tools such as Cellebrite was an offence of some sort? I would hope that such a take wouldn't stand, but technology laws can be pretty archaic- see exporting cryptographic software.
celticninja 5y ago
If using signal opens you up to more trouble because it interferes with an authoritarian regimes power over you, then signal and what it does to a cellebrite device is hardly a primary concern. If you live in a country with the rule of law, then just using an app doesn't make you guilty of anything. The fact the this security feature has been publicly declared puts the onus on cellebrite and the police using their devices, to ensure relevant patches are applied at their end to prevent these features from working. These devices are already bypassing android and iOS security features to do what they do, this is no different. To me these files are essentially similar to a passcode on a device.

by Malp 5y ago

cstejerean 5y ago

I don't see why it would be your fault. You or your lawyer can point to this very blog post to demonstrate that any interference with Cellebrite was not intentional on your part.

Malp 5y ago
Could a party not argue that knowingly using software with functionality that interfered with tools such as Cellebrite was an offence of some sort? I would hope that such a take wouldn't stand, but technology laws can be pretty archaic- see exporting cryptographic software.

celticninja 5y ago

If using signal opens you up to more trouble because it interferes with an authoritarian regimes power over you, then signal and what it does to a cellebrite device is hardly a primary concern. If you live in a country with the rule of law, then just using an app doesn't make you guilty of anything. The fact the this security feature has been publicly declared puts the onus on cellebrite and the police using their devices, to ensure relevant patches are applied at their end to prevent these features from working. These devices are already bypassing android and iOS security features to do what they do, this is no different. To me these files are essentially similar to a passcode on a device.