2 ms·
> "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 softwar
by 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 agoUnless 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 agoProbably 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.