4 ms·

It's probably unwise to think prosecutors and federal agents are stupid. They were in the 1990s crypto wars, but not now. What we tend to perceive as 'stupid' i

It's probably unwise to think prosecutors and federal agents are stupid. They were in the 1990s crypto wars, but not now. What we tend to perceive as 'stupid' is in reality, 'powerful.' They don't need to explain themselves, because they put the onus of compliance on you. Gaming out the subpoena, Signal does not have this user information because it does not exist, but it does have server locations, 3rd party service providers relationships, and staff who can all be dragged into the process and system, where they can be charged with other arbitrary process crimes to put pressure on them. It's a mistake to interpret any official action as a serial, single point transactional request. Like mice, if you think you see one, you have, and it's guaranteed there are many more behind it. Given where they have used the action to draw your attention, where in relief is the second part of the pinch or funnel they are creating? If the legal system wants to destroy you, they can and do. Signal has antagonized them, and the current political climate is all about getting rid of any resistance to official powers and their unofficial private arms. Politically, there is ample incentive to take out Signal and cause users to switch to more amenable apps from friendly platform companies. They may even be able to compel friendly app stores to patch apps before they are distributed. To me, this subpoena looks like the Cellebrite takedown was analogous to injuring a cop, where the response will likely be disproportionate and even extra-legal, because it is about maintaining public perception and belief.

rocqua 6y ago
The subpoena is dated 29 march. That puts it before the celebrite blog. Hence, it cannot be a response to that blog.
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Fair and astute observation, and it implies prosecutors have been rounding on Signal for months at least before the Cellebrite blog post as well. However, it also means there was already a snare set for them before the post. I would still not underestimate what these people are capable of. If they want to get you, they will find a way to get you.
  - sdenton4 6y ago
    Care to provide any commentary on signal's epic battle to escape destruction after their last subpoena in 2016?
  - vineyardmike 6y ago
    This subpoena could not really be about signal at all. Maybe they just wanted to subpoena for chat logs? What if there is no grand conspiracy.
  - thecrash 6y ago
    > I would still not underestimate what these people are capable of. If they want to get you, they will find a way to get you. It's actually comforting to believe your adversary is so powerful that the only thing keeping you safe is their failure to notice you. Because that leaves you with only one reasonable course of action: don't rock the boat. The reality, however is far more troubling: Even great powers have blind spots, weaknesses and limitations. Though it's not easy, their power can be contested. Which implies that refusing to rock the boat is just laziness or cowardice.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      I prefer the third option: try to turn adversaries into allies. I totally lack the skills necessary in this case, but that’s my preference.
Mc_Big_G 6y ago
I'm glad Signal doesn't have this defeatist attitude.
Sleepytime 6y ago
> They may even be able to compel friendly app stores to patch apps before they are distributed. Google's apk signing changes comes to mind.
captainmuon 6y ago
If I were really concerned about my users' rights as Moxie and Signal are, I would probably put something into my bylaws that immediately dissolves the company the second we were compelled to act against our convictions. (Sidenote: can you somehow legally destroy non-material property?) I know they are very much against decentralisation (technially), but in order to keep the service going even in that case it would probably make sense to create dozens or hundreds of legal entities. I know it sounds like a joke, but I know for sure in real estate or meatpacking businesses you have people register companies like "Joes Sausages #1", "Joes Sausages #2", ... "#400" - mainly to get around labor laws but also to make it complicated to determine ownership. And don't underestimate how utterly dependent our governments are on the online industries - it is todays equivalent of the railroad, and getting control of the railroads was one of the important milestones in the october revolution. Long story short, I don't think it is quite so one-sided, and I'm going to grab some popcorn...
md_ 6y ago
This is one of those posts that sounds truthy because it makes a bunch of broad assertions. ;) Legal systems are peopled by people. Just like other systems. Unlike many other systems, the American legal system is in fact highly distributed—so it's hard to say things like "The System is out to destroy you"; individual agents of that "system" might have different, misaligned, or antagonistic goals. Much of this is by design. Of course, even when not by design, the local, state, and federal agencies, elected officials, and judiciaries which make up "the government" comprise a massive, federated, distributed organization, far more complex, and far less centrally administered, than the most chaotic FAANG company. So if you think Microsoft can't turn their product strategy on a dime, well, the US government isn't capable of reacting to the Cellebrite blog post this quickly (even if this subpoena didn't precede that post, as someone else pointed out). (As an aside, while I'm not a lawyer, the question on "interstate wiring" seems rather obviously to suggest that the investigators are pursuing a theory of federal criminal charges that require the messaging to cross state lines. Getting Signal to say "yes, this is interstate" might just be something they need to convince a grand jury the theory applies.)
- true_religion 6y ago
  Signal seems secure from the outside, but is it? A judge won't simply take their word for it that they don't have the data, they'll make the order and see if anything turns up. What if there's a misconfigured logging server that has information that can be used to identify users? Well then that's now going to be given to the government and if Signal tries to turn it off they'll be liable for destruction of evidence. The actual employees of Signal know internal details of if something is poorly implemented and leaks useful information or not. If the government rattles the cage hard enough, they think they might find someone within it that will give up that information.
  - md_ 6y ago
    Judges taking their word for it is exactly what happens when you respond to a subpoena. That’s literally how it works.
    - 6y ago
vineyardmike 6y ago
What if the legal system doesn’t want to destroy them and this was simply a request to gather chat logs in some other case? What if there is no conspiracy and this is basically marketing for signal to say “look. We have no data to share. Take our word for it under threat of perjury”
dheera 6y ago
To Mark Zuckerberg: "So, how do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?" To George Floyd witness: "So you had something called a mobile device right? And a mobile device is capable of taking pictures right? And you used the mobile device to use that capability right? And your eyes were able to see things besides the phone right?" No shit Sherlock, have you never used Facebook and seen the glaring ads? A 15-year old could figure that out. Oh and yeah phones take pictures and people have eyes that can move. Just play the damn video. Yes, play the video, not "publish the exhibit". They really do sound pretty stupid to me.
- salawat 6y ago
  Old prosecutor's/attorney's trick. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. You're there to tease out the record in your favor, and try to control the narrative through leading questions. The legal system is not about truth. It's about corraling 12 fish out of water to your way of seeing things. Throw the judges/lawyers a curveball with something like jury nullification and see how quick things get nasty.
  - dheera 6y ago
    If you know the answer, just say it. I don't want to pay $900/hour for someone to ask rhetorical questions.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Attorneys for parties ina case are not witnesses, can’t be cross-examined, and are not permitted to just introduce fact claims into evidence themselves. They have to ask questions of witnesses, who are the subject to cross examination. There a very good reasons for it even if it isn’t maximally entertaining viewing.
      - dheera 6y ago
        > introduce fact claims I'm sure everyone would agree that people have eyes and phones and that a phone can take pictures. Why is that a fact claim? Just show the pictures. And then ask real questions, like "what do you see" "oh look someone's knee on someone's neck". I hate inefficiency.

rocqua 6y ago

The subpoena is dated 29 march. That puts it before the celebrite blog. Hence, it cannot be a response to that blog.

motohagiography 6y ago
Fair and astute observation, and it implies prosecutors have been rounding on Signal for months at least before the Cellebrite blog post as well. However, it also means there was already a snare set for them before the post. I would still not underestimate what these people are capable of. If they want to get you, they will find a way to get you.
- sdenton4 6y ago
  Care to provide any commentary on signal's epic battle to escape destruction after their last subpoena in 2016?
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  This subpoena could not really be about signal at all. Maybe they just wanted to subpoena for chat logs? What if there is no grand conspiracy.
- thecrash 6y ago
  > I would still not underestimate what these people are capable of. If they want to get you, they will find a way to get you. It's actually comforting to believe your adversary is so powerful that the only thing keeping you safe is their failure to notice you. Because that leaves you with only one reasonable course of action: don't rock the boat. The reality, however is far more troubling: Even great powers have blind spots, weaknesses and limitations. Though it's not easy, their power can be contested. Which implies that refusing to rock the boat is just laziness or cowardice.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I prefer the third option: try to turn adversaries into allies. I totally lack the skills necessary in this case, but that’s my preference.

Mc_Big_G 6y ago

I'm glad Signal doesn't have this defeatist attitude.

Sleepytime 6y ago

> They may even be able to compel friendly app stores to patch apps before they are distributed. Google's apk signing changes comes to mind.

captainmuon 6y ago

If I were really concerned about my users' rights as Moxie and Signal are, I would probably put something into my bylaws that immediately dissolves the company the second we were compelled to act against our convictions. (Sidenote: can you somehow legally destroy non-material property?) I know they are very much against decentralisation (technially), but in order to keep the service going even in that case it would probably make sense to create dozens or hundreds of legal entities. I know it sounds like a joke, but I know for sure in real estate or meatpacking businesses you have people register companies like "Joes Sausages #1", "Joes Sausages #2", ... "#400" - mainly to get around labor laws but also to make it complicated to determine ownership. And don't underestimate how utterly dependent our governments are on the online industries - it is todays equivalent of the railroad, and getting control of the railroads was one of the important milestones in the october revolution. Long story short, I don't think it is quite so one-sided, and I'm going to grab some popcorn...

md_ 6y ago

This is one of those posts that sounds truthy because it makes a bunch of broad assertions. ;) Legal systems are peopled by people. Just like other systems. Unlike many other systems, the American legal system is in fact highly distributed—so it's hard to say things like "The System is out to destroy you"; individual agents of that "system" might have different, misaligned, or antagonistic goals. Much of this is by design. Of course, even when not by design, the local, state, and federal agencies, elected officials, and judiciaries which make up "the government" comprise a massive, federated, distributed organization, far more complex, and far less centrally administered, than the most chaotic FAANG company. So if you think Microsoft can't turn their product strategy on a dime, well, the US government isn't capable of reacting to the Cellebrite blog post this quickly (even if this subpoena didn't precede that post, as someone else pointed out). (As an aside, while I'm not a lawyer, the question on "interstate wiring" seems rather obviously to suggest that the investigators are pursuing a theory of federal criminal charges that require the messaging to cross state lines. Getting Signal to say "yes, this is interstate" might just be something they need to convince a grand jury the theory applies.)

true_religion 6y ago
Signal seems secure from the outside, but is it? A judge won't simply take their word for it that they don't have the data, they'll make the order and see if anything turns up. What if there's a misconfigured logging server that has information that can be used to identify users? Well then that's now going to be given to the government and if Signal tries to turn it off they'll be liable for destruction of evidence. The actual employees of Signal know internal details of if something is poorly implemented and leaks useful information or not. If the government rattles the cage hard enough, they think they might find someone within it that will give up that information.
- md_ 6y ago
  Judges taking their word for it is exactly what happens when you respond to a subpoena. That’s literally how it works.
  - 6y ago

vineyardmike 6y ago

What if the legal system doesn’t want to destroy them and this was simply a request to gather chat logs in some other case? What if there is no conspiracy and this is basically marketing for signal to say “look. We have no data to share. Take our word for it under threat of perjury”

dheera 6y ago

To Mark Zuckerberg: "So, how do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?" To George Floyd witness: "So you had something called a mobile device right? And a mobile device is capable of taking pictures right? And you used the mobile device to use that capability right? And your eyes were able to see things besides the phone right?" No shit Sherlock, have you never used Facebook and seen the glaring ads? A 15-year old could figure that out. Oh and yeah phones take pictures and people have eyes that can move. Just play the damn video. Yes, play the video, not "publish the exhibit". They really do sound pretty stupid to me.

salawat 6y ago
Old prosecutor's/attorney's trick. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. You're there to tease out the record in your favor, and try to control the narrative through leading questions. The legal system is not about truth. It's about corraling 12 fish out of water to your way of seeing things. Throw the judges/lawyers a curveball with something like jury nullification and see how quick things get nasty.
- dheera 6y ago
  If you know the answer, just say it. I don't want to pay $900/hour for someone to ask rhetorical questions.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Attorneys for parties ina case are not witnesses, can’t be cross-examined, and are not permitted to just introduce fact claims into evidence themselves. They have to ask questions of witnesses, who are the subject to cross examination. There a very good reasons for it even if it isn’t maximally entertaining viewing.
    - dheera 6y ago
      > introduce fact claims I'm sure everyone would agree that people have eyes and phones and that a phone can take pictures. Why is that a fact claim? Just show the pictures. And then ask real questions, like "what do you see" "oh look someone's knee on someone's neck". I hate inefficiency.