3 ms·

> this subpoena requested a wide variety of information we don’t have, including the target’s name, address, correspondence, contacts, groups, calls. Couldn't

> this subpoena requested a wide variety of information we don’t have, including the target’s name, address, correspondence, contacts, groups, calls. Couldn't they easily use the phone number associated with the Signal account to find the target's name? Even if the account uses a pre-paid SIM without a credit card attached, the telco could still reveal the location of the device and probably its IMEI, which could be used to find other SIMs associated with it. I think Signal should stop pretending they're an anonymous service when their identity is based on phone numbers.

rndmind 5y ago
As other posters have pointed out, the onus is not on signal to connect a phone number with a person's physcal address. Besides, what about burner phone numbers, silly...
eertami 5y ago
>Couldn't they easily use the phone number associated with the Signal account to find the target's name? What do you mean? They already have the telephone number. It is listed in the subpoena. All Signal is doing is confirming that this phone number has a Signal account - sure, it's not perfect, but I don't really see your point. They don't need Signal to be able to do any of the things you listed.
ViViDboarder 5y ago
For what it’s work, as far as I know, Signal has never claimed to be an anonymous communication service. They are a secure communication service. This means they minimize the information that is in the clear and do this quite well. Now to your specific concern about the phone number. Signal only has your phone number and sign up time. This means that for someone to request your information, they’ll pretty much need that already. If you look at the subpoena you’ll see that the FBI is asking for data associated with the persons name or phone number. Name is something Signal doesn’t have. You’re right that it’s trivial to get with the phone number (and the FBI has obviously done this), but they must necessarily have this information to even request data from Signal. In other words, Signal doesn’t provide a means of leaking your name. What using a phone number identifier does do is allow someone to go from name to phone number to Signal request, though that Signal request with turn up very little data.

rndmind 5y ago

As other posters have pointed out, the onus is not on signal to connect a phone number with a person's physcal address. Besides, what about burner phone numbers, silly...

eertami 5y ago

>Couldn't they easily use the phone number associated with the Signal account to find the target's name? What do you mean? They already have the telephone number. It is listed in the subpoena. All Signal is doing is confirming that this phone number has a Signal account - sure, it's not perfect, but I don't really see your point. They don't need Signal to be able to do any of the things you listed.

ViViDboarder 5y ago

For what it’s work, as far as I know, Signal has never claimed to be an anonymous communication service. They are a secure communication service. This means they minimize the information that is in the clear and do this quite well. Now to your specific concern about the phone number. Signal only has your phone number and sign up time. This means that for someone to request your information, they’ll pretty much need that already. If you look at the subpoena you’ll see that the FBI is asking for data associated with the persons name or phone number. Name is something Signal doesn’t have. You’re right that it’s trivial to get with the phone number (and the FBI has obviously done this), but they must necessarily have this information to even request data from Signal. In other words, Signal doesn’t provide a means of leaking your name. What using a phone number identifier does do is allow someone to go from name to phone number to Signal request, though that Signal request with turn up very little data.