5 ms·

It's not a dead end with Signal. But it requires field work, as they used to do 50 years ago. Now, cops and politicians want to solve all the problems from the

It's not a dead end with Signal. But it requires field work, as they used to do 50 years ago. Now, cops and politicians want to solve all the problems from their desk. No, sorry, my freedom is not to be sold for their convenience. You want to catch a bad guy, you get a trained investigation team that follows people, that wires their house, that interrogates neighborhood, etc. Is it more work ? Yes. Is it more dangerous ? Hell, yes. But don't say you can't catch criminals because of Signal. What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people. It's a good thing. This mantra is just an excuse to chew off chunks of democracy.

davidw 5y ago
> What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people There's a subpoena in this process that you're glossing over. You can argue that's too easy or too secretive or something, and that's more than fair, but it's not just 'clicking a button'.
- surge 5y ago
  Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Often done in secret with the barest of oversight. A warrant requires a bit more justification at least.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    > Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Do you have a source for that?
    - lazide 5y ago
      Oldie but a goodie, and I doubt the numbers have improved - but essentially they are never denied for FISA at least. Which is basically the definition of rubber stamping no? [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret-government-demand-for-data/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/articl...]
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        The obvious counter-argument, unfortunately, is that the government has a clear idea of which requests the FISA court would reject, and therefore never bothers making such requests. That would mean the court is correctly preventing executive overreach and there's nothing to worry about.
        lazide 5y ago
        Even agents randomly screwing up would produce higher reject rates - 99%+ approval rates practically means no one is even looking no?
- d4mi3n 5y ago
  This is only true if the companies you're asking for data refuse to provide it _without_ a subpoena. Many companies (let's us AT&T as an example) will provide law enforcement whatever data they ask for without requiring a subpoena.
  - tadfisher 5y ago
    Bad example: regulate telecommunications companies are required by statute to provide certain information on request. A better example is Amazon with their law enforcement partnerships through Ring.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  I assume parent was probably referring more to the subpoena- / warrant- less "creative" solutions that have been discovered, than the typical exhaustion process.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  I'm not arguing about the subpoena, I'm arguing against the idea that encrypted solutions are bad. If you have a subpoena to open a safe, and you realize that you have no tools that are strong enough to open that safe, you don't suddenly blame safes. You don't tell banks they should stop using safes. You don't ask them to create weaker safes robbers can break into. You try another route. A subpoena is fair. Asking signal to preemptively not encrypt the data in case we need it later is not.
  - davidw 5y ago
    azinman2 didn't say that there should not be encryption, just that there's a cost, and I think that's a fair statement. Sometimes, 'other methods' are not viable and you're not going to be able to stop the bad guys.
- lazide 5y ago
  Have you heard about parallel construction [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction] and AT&T’s room 641a? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A] Those are the tip of the iceberg. If there is an automated way to get this data, the agencies will do it, and then retroactively generate the paperwork to make it look ok in court if they feel it’s worth their time. If structurally there is no privacy except some friction with generating paperwork, then we already have solid evidence here in the US in modern times that you defacto have no privacy.
jonnybgood 5y ago
So you want cost the taxpayer significantly with potentially months of unneeded work and expose cops to potentially more danger to ultimately arrive at the same result? How exactly is this better?
- t-writescode 5y ago
  > to ultimately arrive at the same result [citation needed] Further: Wiretapping is illegal without a warrant. I believe the spirit of the law there implied that wiretapping of [previous, historical conversations] was _always_ illegal, since a wiretap could only be tracking future conversations by its very nature. The nature of communication has changed, such that all conversations theoretically have a permanent, historical record, despite the intention of those conversations to not have that historical record. It's called "instant messaging", after all, not "perpetual letter writing". It's meant to be an analogue to talking directly with one another. The path we've gone down where everyone uses a third party to communicate with each other, and that that third party could theoretically record and retain all communications back and forth in perpetuity does not change the _intent_ of the laws as they were written. The laws were to protect everyone from unreasonable review of their historical actions. Perhaps you remember that story - I've completely forgotten the source and am having trouble finding it - about the person taken in the night and thrown in front of a judge. He asked what his crimes were, and the judge said "that's what we're here to find out", as they were going to go through everything he'd ever done to find something to charge him with. edit: another instance would be Lavrentiy Beria, a police chief under Stalin (https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-ill-show-you-the-crime/ https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-i...) "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime."
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >"Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." That's nothing new, either. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Attributed (possibly apocryphal) to Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642).
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
ChrisKnott 5y ago
50 years ago police would obtain a suspect's phone records. This has been part of criminal investigation for as long as phones have existed. If you have someone being blackmailed or defrauded online, what "field work" are you suggesting here? > "cops [...] want to solve all the problems from their desk." This literally couldn't be more wrong.

davidw 5y ago

> What you can't do, is click on a button to spy on people There's a subpoena in this process that you're glossing over. You can argue that's too easy or too secretive or something, and that's more than fair, but it's not just 'clicking a button'.

surge 5y ago
Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Often done in secret with the barest of oversight. A warrant requires a bit more justification at least.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  > Sub poena is basically a rubber stamp after filling out a form. Do you have a source for that?
  - lazide 5y ago
    Oldie but a goodie, and I doubt the numbers have improved - but essentially they are never denied for FISA at least. Which is basically the definition of rubber stamping no? [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret-government-demand-for-data/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.zdnet.com/google-amp/articl...]
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      The obvious counter-argument, unfortunately, is that the government has a clear idea of which requests the FISA court would reject, and therefore never bothers making such requests. That would mean the court is correctly preventing executive overreach and there's nothing to worry about.
      - lazide 5y ago
        Even agents randomly screwing up would produce higher reject rates - 99%+ approval rates practically means no one is even looking no?
d4mi3n 5y ago
This is only true if the companies you're asking for data refuse to provide it _without_ a subpoena. Many companies (let's us AT&T as an example) will provide law enforcement whatever data they ask for without requiring a subpoena.
- tadfisher 5y ago
  Bad example: regulate telecommunications companies are required by statute to provide certain information on request. A better example is Amazon with their law enforcement partnerships through Ring.
ethbr0 5y ago
I assume parent was probably referring more to the subpoena- / warrant- less "creative" solutions that have been discovered, than the typical exhaustion process.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
I'm not arguing about the subpoena, I'm arguing against the idea that encrypted solutions are bad. If you have a subpoena to open a safe, and you realize that you have no tools that are strong enough to open that safe, you don't suddenly blame safes. You don't tell banks they should stop using safes. You don't ask them to create weaker safes robbers can break into. You try another route. A subpoena is fair. Asking signal to preemptively not encrypt the data in case we need it later is not.
- davidw 5y ago
  azinman2 didn't say that there should not be encryption, just that there's a cost, and I think that's a fair statement. Sometimes, 'other methods' are not viable and you're not going to be able to stop the bad guys.
lazide 5y ago
Have you heard about parallel construction [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction] and AT&T’s room 641a? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A] Those are the tip of the iceberg. If there is an automated way to get this data, the agencies will do it, and then retroactively generate the paperwork to make it look ok in court if they feel it’s worth their time. If structurally there is no privacy except some friction with generating paperwork, then we already have solid evidence here in the US in modern times that you defacto have no privacy.

jonnybgood 5y ago

So you want cost the taxpayer significantly with potentially months of unneeded work and expose cops to potentially more danger to ultimately arrive at the same result? How exactly is this better?

t-writescode 5y ago
> to ultimately arrive at the same result [citation needed] Further: Wiretapping is illegal without a warrant. I believe the spirit of the law there implied that wiretapping of [previous, historical conversations] was _always_ illegal, since a wiretap could only be tracking future conversations by its very nature. The nature of communication has changed, such that all conversations theoretically have a permanent, historical record, despite the intention of those conversations to not have that historical record. It's called "instant messaging", after all, not "perpetual letter writing". It's meant to be an analogue to talking directly with one another. The path we've gone down where everyone uses a third party to communicate with each other, and that that third party could theoretically record and retain all communications back and forth in perpetuity does not change the _intent_ of the laws as they were written. The laws were to protect everyone from unreasonable review of their historical actions. Perhaps you remember that story - I've completely forgotten the source and am having trouble finding it - about the person taken in the night and thrown in front of a judge. He asked what his crimes were, and the judge said "that's what we're here to find out", as they were going to go through everything he'd ever done to find something to charge him with. edit: another instance would be Lavrentiy Beria, a police chief under Stalin (https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-ill-show-you-the-crime/ https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-i...) "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime."
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >"Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." That's nothing new, either. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Attributed (possibly apocryphal) to Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642).
- dane-pgp 5y ago

ChrisKnott 5y ago

50 years ago police would obtain a suspect's phone records. This has been part of criminal investigation for as long as phones have existed. If you have someone being blackmailed or defrauded online, what "field work" are you suggesting here? > "cops [...] want to solve all the problems from their desk." This literally couldn't be more wrong.