4 ms·

Also not the same thing because the law also considers the harm caused to innocent 3rd parties from booby traps. No firefighter or EMT is gonna be harmed by the

by conk 5y ago

Also not the same thing because the law also considers the harm caused to innocent 3rd parties from booby traps. No firefighter or EMT is gonna be harmed by the Signal code designed to break the cellebrite device.

seoaeu 5y ago
"Police officer executing a warrant" is another typical category of innocent 3rd party that the laws around booby traps think about. If the harm is directed at a police officer using cellebrite -- say by infecting their computer with malware -- that may not be regarded favorably by a court.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Disclosure would be an interesting precedent. "I have Signal installed on my phone" seems a reasonable disclosure of a known potential trap. If a police officer chooses to scan said phone with Cellebrite, it feels reasonable that you have discharged your knowledge to the extent possible.
  - NateEag 5y ago
    > "I have Signal installed on my phone" seems a reasonable disclosure of a known potential trap. No, that's a straightforward statement of fact which a software expert might realize implies there's a trap. A police officer could not reasonably be expected to know that. A reasonable disclosure of a known potential trap is "I have Signal installed on my phone, so if you use a Cellebrite device to pull my data your Cellebrite device might get hacked by Signal."
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Unless you're an information security professional, it seems unreasonable to expect an average Signal user to know more about the security of Cellebrite than Cellebrite's user (the police).
      - NateEag 5y ago
        Probably so. Thanks for pointing that out. If you're using Signal at all, you probably care at least a little about security, so it's not a given, but probably the vast majority of Signal users wil never hear about this. I wasn't trying to say you're automatically guilty if you don't warn the police about what Signal could do. I was just trying to say that a statement that _implies_ a trap exists, if you know enough about a piece of software, it's not a reasonable warning that a trap exists. If you know the trap exists, a case can be made that such an indirect statement is actually baiting the trap, rather than warning about it.

by conk 5y ago

seoaeu 5y ago

"Police officer executing a warrant" is another typical category of innocent 3rd party that the laws around booby traps think about. If the harm is directed at a police officer using cellebrite -- say by infecting their computer with malware -- that may not be regarded favorably by a court.

ethbr0 5y ago
Disclosure would be an interesting precedent. "I have Signal installed on my phone" seems a reasonable disclosure of a known potential trap. If a police officer chooses to scan said phone with Cellebrite, it feels reasonable that you have discharged your knowledge to the extent possible.
- NateEag 5y ago
  > "I have Signal installed on my phone" seems a reasonable disclosure of a known potential trap. No, that's a straightforward statement of fact which a software expert might realize implies there's a trap. A police officer could not reasonably be expected to know that. A reasonable disclosure of a known potential trap is "I have Signal installed on my phone, so if you use a Cellebrite device to pull my data your Cellebrite device might get hacked by Signal."
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Unless you're an information security professional, it seems unreasonable to expect an average Signal user to know more about the security of Cellebrite than Cellebrite's user (the police).
    - NateEag 5y ago
      Probably so. Thanks for pointing that out. If you're using Signal at all, you probably care at least a little about security, so it's not a given, but probably the vast majority of Signal users wil never hear about this. I wasn't trying to say you're automatically guilty if you don't warn the police about what Signal could do. I was just trying to say that a statement that _implies_ a trap exists, if you know enough about a piece of software, it's not a reasonable warning that a trap exists. If you know the trap exists, a case can be made that such an indirect statement is actually baiting the trap, rather than warning about it.