This could have been a potential line of reasoning, if they would have implemented it, and if Signal were taken to court for it. The problem is, they wrote thi

This could have been a potential line of reasoning, if they would have implemented it, and if Signal were taken to court for it. The problem is, they wrote this article. Where they say they will put 'aesthetically pleasing' code on installations. But not all installations. So Cellebrite can claim it's a menace (sort of a booby-trap) , and not a protection (sort of a shield). Another issue: they say they obtained then kit because it fell of a truck. Any judge knows that 'fell of a truck' is a manner of speaking. Thanks to their statement it will be possible for Cellebrite to say "We checked the last 6 months of deliveries, no truck incidents". Cellebrite can try to find civil statutes (fraud?) and ask for discovery. If that is allowed by the judge, Signal will have to show all documents and messages pertaining to the hack, or risk contempt of court or perjury. This is what the article is about. TL;DR: great work guys, wish you had consulted a lawyer before writing the post though.