9 ms·
MLAT order from Luxembourg for Signal user data
- usui 5y agoSignal seems to be a lone island in its dedication to user privacy. Is this naive or an accurate evaluation? Have they done anything recently to signal that these may falter? What is going to suggest they won't resort to rent-seeking or monetizing in the future?
- mach1ne 5y agoVery recently they added their first closed-source component to their code, supposedly a spam filter. This sort of went by HN. I can't help but think that the timing with all these requests is rather coincidental.
- Klonoar 5y agoIt didn't "sort of go by HN", it was on the front page for a bit and had some 97 comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29072031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29072031
- approxim8ion 5y agoMy understanding is that this component was added to their server code. If their clients are still verifyiably encrypting the content and limiting the metadata for your messages, it should not be much of an issue.
- robryk 5y agoEvery time you send a message with Signal, you inform the server which user the message is for. Thus, the server can remember (sending IP, target phone number) pairs and, for similar reasons, (phone number, IP of the user when retrieving messages) pairs. We rely on the server to discard this information; if not discarded, it reveals the social graph and the phone number<->IPs used mapping.
- sam_lowry_ 5y agoAnd since Snowden we know that meta-information is as important as information. So Signal being E2E encrypted goes only halfway towards ensuring the privacy of our communications.
- approxim8ion 5y agoI'm aware of this, but it's not like it's a new concern with this piece of code. This has always been the case.
- BelenusMordred 5y agoDon't really understand the cries for their server code to be constantly updated or even open sourced, you can't ever verify that's what they are running anyway. Maybe there's some sort of cryptographic attestation out there which could fulfil such purposes but quite sure it's not that practical.
- robryk 5y agoThat's true and it's one reason I'm not too comfortable with Signal's access to metadata (even though they are the best nonfederated communicator in that regard). There are a few reasons why I would prefer them to provide source code that they claim is running in the service due to the metadata issue: a) if it's actually running there, people can find simple bugs in it that could allow that metadata to be stored or revealed by accident, b) if it's not actually running there, but something very close is (i.e. that code with small amount of patches), then the advantage above still applies and if those patches come to light, they can be easily evaluated for intent and effect, c) if they're running something completely different (which would be very weird), it'd be noticeable and it would be an obvious lie once exposed.
- 0xy 5y agoTheir server code was closed source for over a year with no explanation, turns out it was to add a shitcoin called "MobileCoin" that Signal's founder has a financial interest in. Ever since that, I don't think you should consider Signal's server "open source" at all. They've shown they'll conceal, diverge and cover up for their own enrichment. What will they do when they're threatened? Cave.
- onphonenow 5y agoNo kidding such a bad look
- nix23 5y agohttps://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server >Last commit 7 Days ago >AGPL-3.0 License That's the present
- 0xy 5y agoHow does this disprove what I said? I said it WAS closed source. It's also not complete anymore, so I think it's still safe to call it closed source. If there's a single piece of closed source code running on the servers, it ceases to be open source.
- nix23 5y ago>If there's a single piece of closed source code running on the servers, it ceases to be open source. Yeah no that's not the definition of opensource, if my opensource mailserver has a closed source spam-scanner, my mail server is still opensource - the spam-scanner
- 0xy 5y agoAnd when the spam scanner looks like: phone_home_to_nsa(metadata, ip_address, sender, recipient); Are you still comfortable with this 'open source' project?
- ComodoHacker 5y agoThere are many smaller islands like Threema, Tox and others. Signal is not a lone one, even if we look away from the continent named Apple.
- usui 5y agoI can't agree with this one. I enjoy Apple products and consider them to be of high quality, but they should not be the star example for user privacy. iCloud backups are turned on by default, which means they have access to the private key, and they considered adding a client-side detection system for "child pornography". From the standpoint of E2EE, enough is enough with the "gray area" in privacy systems. Either you don't fiddle/introspect with the content that goes through your communication medium, or you do.
- ComodoHacker 5y ago>they should not be the star example for user privacy They are not perfect, but I can't see anyone who does better overall. >iCloud backups are turned on by default I believe it is good default, as 90%+ of their users (would) care more about accidental data loss than privacy. When that changes, Apple will change the default. >client-side detection system for "child pornography" Yes, that's a very controversial move. But they made it client-side because it's more private than server-side.
- foerbert 5y ago> I believe it is good default, as 90%+ of their users (would) care more about accidental data loss than privacy. I think you're right about the numbers, but I don't understand why that justifies the default. Why even have a default? Why not just ask users what they want? It's not a hard question, and it even has the benefit of helping inform users about the feature. > Yes, that's a very controversial move. But they made it client-side because it's more private than server-side. So? Either it respects privacy or it doesn't in this kind of discussion. Lauding them for violating your privacy but not as much as they could otherwise is like lauding a mugger for only taking half of the cash in your wallet. Yeah it could have been worse, but that doesn't change the nature of their actions.
- hippich 5y agoLast time I tried them, they still required phone number? If it is still the case, they did compromise on the users privacy.
- usui 5y agoThis is a usability stance. Removing the ability to use phone numbers would have made it harder for users to adopt Signal, and I find it to be a reasonable trade-off. At least right now, the only thing prying eyes can do is know that you use Signal due to the login SMS, or hijack your SMS. We all know about some terrible security practices that phone providers have been doing with phone number swapping by unauthorized parties, but if we can pick non-awful phone providers which at least have password-protected SIM locks on the account, it shouldn't be as viable.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago> Removing the ability to use phone numbers I've never seen anyone ask for Signal to remove the ability to use phone numbers. People ask Signal to add the ability to use something other than a phone number, as well.
- Arnt 5y agoAs I've heard it, it's motivated by security rather than usability: If two people use Signal to communicate with each other, then they should use the Signal protocol rather than SMS, without having to go through any extra steps. There are different ways to achieve that, all of which have drawbacks. They chose one.
- New_California 5y agoThere is more, like very promising https://cwtch.im/ https://cwtch.im/
- fauigerzigerk 5y agoMatrix looks the most promising to me. I believe the people behind it are principled (just like I think the people behind Signal are), but the Matrix protocol doesn't require heros. There's no single point of technical or legal failure.
- tialaramex 5y ago> the Matrix protocol doesn't require heros Do you have some examples of the sort of "heroism" you think is involved here?
- fauigerzigerk 5y agoWhat I mean is that Signal as a messaging service depends completely on Signal as an organisation and on the few individuals running that organisation. Everything hinges on them. It's pretty clear that governments around the world (including many western countries) have decided that online services must take full responsibility for everything their users say and do on the platform. Regulation is coming hard and fast. It's not subtle and some of it will inevitably be inconsistent with E2EE. Anyone running a popular service of this sort is going to be under huge pressure - political pressure, expensive legal pressure and presumably the sort of pressure exerted by police and intelligence services that the rest of us are fortunate not to know very much about. Signal's structure, the tight link between the org, the people and the centralised operations focuses all the pressure on this small group of people. They are going to be an absolute lightning rod as soon as WhatsApp has given up. I don't want to be in their shoes. I fear they will have to make very difficult decisions pretty soon. I find it puzzling that they're making themselves the target of further powerful opponents by adding cryptocurrencies to the mix. I think Matrix has the better structure for what's coming. It distributes the pressure. It's not either on or off. It's not just some specific app that can be banned.
- tialaramex 5y agoPoliticians are under pressure to "do something" about services like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Youtube, Reddit ... services which publish what some of their users do and say, and enjoy broad immunity from lawsuits despite choosing what is communicated and by who. None of which applies to Signal. Your theory is that, seeing this, US politicians will decide priority #1 is to re-write the US constitution in order to go after a completely different service? Sure, they can't find a bare majority of votes for cheap, easy fixes that are broadly popular, but repeatedly getting super-majorities for the lengthy and expensive process of tearing down the fundamental principles of the country to go after an outfit few voters have even heard of it will be easy? I don't buy it. One of the most awful things about the "better structure" of Matrix is that if you make any use of this "better structure" you eliminate Don't Stand Out which is an essential characteristic of Signal. Yet, to enable that "better structure" to even exist Matrix already makes you give up some of the privacy you have on Signal anyway. So you're losing some privacy to have the option of giving up even more privacy. Several of the sub-threads in this discussion mention metadata. Don't Stand Out is crucial because of metadata. The Secret Police can raid all sixteen users of "Jim's Black Pill Matrix Server" and if two of them are innocent bystanders too bad, all fourteen members of the Conspiracy To Do A Naughty Thing are known to use Jim's server, and so they Stand Out and were caught. In contrast, using Signal the Conspiracy To Do A Naughty Thing are disguised by the presence of Sarah's Hen Night Planning DO NOT TELL SARAH, Smith Family Group, and LOL Funny Cats!!!! among many more. Signal doesn't know, or care about any of these groups.
- boondaburrah 5y agoSignal has demonstrated to me that they don't give a shit about privacy, but they care a lot about security. I'll take it, but I wouldn't confuse the two.
- bsaul 5y agomy guess is they will soon be rendered illegal. States don't like it when someone repeatedly gives them the finger...
- can16358p 5y agoYou mean encrypted communications or making order documents public?
- bsaul 5y agoi mean encrypting metadata as well, so that you can't provide security agencies anything at all
- rStar 5y agototalitarian dictatorial authoritarian states, yes
- ben_w 5y agoWell perhaps, but I get the impression (as one who lives here) that the EU values privacy over free speech, so perhaps not.
- DyslexicAtheist 5y agoin theory yes but in practice your rights to privacy stop the moment you're on the radar of LEA's. not because of the laws but because of companies / vendors over-enthusiastic and pro-active efforts to collaborate. one of my first jobs working as a dev for what was back then the largest email provider in Germany was a system that would automatically extract all email correspondence from user-accounts that were demanded (via fax) and fax it back to them. we received only a few per week and it was a manual process at LEA's s. there was no law that required this to be automated and we could have done this manually but we wanted it to scale so that we could serve the same answers not per week but per second if we had to (at least that's how I implemented it because I was young, and keen and not thinking). I have no idea how many requests they answer today but if I'd have to guess it would be a lot more because these processes today are also automated at the LEA. It's no longer a deputy that prints it out and manually sends a fax. also LEO's are just people. there are plenty of cases where they are totally happy to use the system to their advantage, and well beyond making speeding tickets disappear.
- underdeserver 5y agoAside from the header, I don't see anything to do with Luxembourg. Does anyone know?
- morsch 5y agoI also don't know how they know this relates to a request from Luxembourg, but (not being a lawyer) I guess you can at least tell it's from another government since it refers to 18 USC § 3512 which is Foreign requests for assistance in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
- svnee 5y agoAs an MP in Luxembourg I asked the gov’ for confirmation and they confirmed that they were at the origin of the request. Currently I’m waiting on more details as to how many requests our tiny nation made to different messenger services abroad.
- azalemeth 5y agoI have often thought that Luxembourg is a wonderful country -- I sang for the Grand Duke on a choir tour as a student and was bowled over by how much history, excellent food and fantastic wine there was in a small, civilised place (where you can get entry to every tourist attraction in the country for €50!) The fact that a Luxembourgish MP is on Hacker News commenting intelligently on a topic in a way that I would frankly do myself just makes me want to emigrate.
- svnee 5y agoThank you! If you ever find the way back to Luxembourg you can easily reach out and I’ll invite you for a private tour of our Parliament. I’m a hacker at heart so it’s my pleasure to lurk here and comment on an issue I’m actually involved in.
- yorwba 5y agoIs the response to the question supposed to be recorded publicly at https://chd.lu/wps/portal/public/Accueil/TravailALaChambre/Recherche/RoleDesAffaires?action=doQuestpaDetails&id=22471 https://chd.lu/wps/portal/public/Accueil/TravailALaChambre/R... as well?
- rvz 5y ago>Because everything in Signal is end-to-end encrypted by default, the broad set of personal information that is typically easy to retrieve in other apps simply doesn’t exist on Signal’s servers. Does this mean that Signal (and other open-source E2EE apps) is a great hiding place for the 'lost and banned', and 'bad' actors? EDIT: Judging from the responses, it is admittedly a "Yes" then. In the case of Signal unfortunately for everyone else, the service is centralised and some governments can and may get the ISPs to block Signal's servers instead.
- tentacleuno 5y agoIf I were looking at this from the perspective of the Govt., it would most likely make sense to request data from Signal. There's nothing much to lose, really. The transparency is rather nice, too. Reminds me of Njalla, but without the children's pictures.
- fei6Ij6m 5y agoThe order is dated 2020-11-24. The response is dated 2021-09-22. The motion to unseal is dated 2021-10-20. Is it normal for Signal to have waited 10 months before responding?
- Arnt 5y agoIt's very slow, slow enough to suspect some bug. Note that it doesn't say when the order was delivered to Signal or the lawyer at the ACLU.
- noduerme 5y agoI'm not sure how Signal functions internally. Does it act as a server that just facilitates E2EE tunnels between clients? In that case wouldn't they still have metadata of which clients were connecting through the app at a certain time, if not which other clients they were paired with?
- bsaul 5y agoi still don't understand how they can route messages to devices without having some kind of registry as well as leaking the destination out of the encrypted payload.. edit : root -> route :)) talk about a freudian slip :)))
- Arnt 5y agoThe verb is route. Rooting a phone... you made me sit up there ;) They do have a registry, but it's not relevant to this order. When you send me a message, your phone sends Signal my phone number and an encrypted blob. Signal routes that to my phone and the server doesn't keep a long-term record of that. Thus, Signal-the-server has a record for the next many seconds at least containing the destination of a messsage. It does not have my profile name, your profile name or any way to connect your phone number to that message. Signal running on my phone has enough state concerning you to decrypt the encrypted blob and see that it's from you. Signal, the organisation, is in control of all the source code and could change the code to gain control of all the information Luxembourg is asking for. But the past is immutable. Noone can go back in time and retroactively store more data. Signal didn't log the destination phone number at the time and so it's not available now, Signal didn't transmit the profile names to the server and so it never arrived and could not be stored.
- bsaul 5y agothen they'll probably be compelled to keep the history in some stash. iirc , internet providers had to face exactly this requirements in the 90s.
- 5y ago
- d3m0t3p 5y agodo they have your phone number ? if so, the cops just call your operator and have your adress
- admin786 5y agoThanks for visiting
- stabbles 5y agoI've said this before, but > Signal still knows nothing about you they do have the means to push an app update that uploads decrypted messages somewhere, and I wonder to what extent governments can force them to do so. Signal users should not enable automatic updates, that's for sure.
- newaccount2021 5y agoimho it is inevitable that Signal will eventually capitulate to law enforcement Signal staff is hyper-woke, all it will take is a subpoena for some alt-right villain's data and Signal staff will be in a lather over the company's implicit support for "hate speech"
- juanani 5y agoToo much good PR is definitely sus. Especially being featured on Mr Robot as super clean hacker friendly, eventually reeks of a IC honeypot. I cant recall a western company that does not comply with their spooks behind closed doors. It is too big already
- kovariantenkak 5y agoSignal has access to more data than they would like you to believe. Each account at Signal is identified by a phone number or an UUID. This account also contains a [list of devices](https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server/blob/c21eb6aa5098f663a7956c9ef8ac8ff8b2731c01/service/src/main/java/org/whispersystems/textsecuregcm/storage/Account.java#L39 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server/blob/c21eb6aa5098...). Each of the devices has some uinteresting metadata assigned to it, but more importantly it links to a specific Android or iOS device through the [push token](https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server/blob/c21eb6aa5098f663a7956c9ef8ac8ff8b2731c01/service/src/main/java/org/whispersystems/textsecuregcm/storage/Device.java#L39 https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server/blob/c21eb6aa5098...). This gives the authorities a link to an account at Google or Apple which then of course contains much more data.