3 ms·
The subpoena is dated 29 march. That puts it before the celebrite blog. Hence, it cannot be a response to that blog.
by 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 agoFair 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 agoCare to provide any commentary on signal's epic battle to escape destruction after their last subpoena in 2016?
- vineyardmike 6y agoThis 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 agoI prefer the third option: try to turn adversaries into allies. I totally lack the skills necessary in this case, but that’s my preference.