3 ms·

I would assume the most likely explanation is an informant was included in the Signal conversations and forwarded the contents along. I wonder if we will get an

I would assume the most likely explanation is an informant was included in the Signal conversations and forwarded the contents along. I wonder if we will get an official statement from Signal.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
Forwarded...or simply handed over their phone (after unlocking it) later as part of a plea deal.
tracnar 5y ago
I think Signal provides deniable authentication, i.e. you can forge messages which cannot be distinguished from a real conversations. I wonder if it has any impact legally speaking, but I guess it would not matter unless there's evidence of tampering.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  Signal uses sender certificates and end to end signing the messages. Even if you don't set a pin to enable registration lock and someone steals your phone number temporarily without you noticing and they know who to send the forged messages to everyone will get a big warning message about the key being changed and to verify it's the other person. Unless you just mean completely invent evidence on a controlled device in which case sure just edit the local message database like you would anything.
  - tracnar 5y ago
    I'm referring to this cryptographic property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_authentication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_authentication which means that once a message is received you cannot re-authenticate it, so evidence on any device is no better than with unencrypted messaging. This is in contrast with classic public key authentication like PGP which provides further evidence that the message is legit and was indeed sent by who it says.
beerandt 5y ago
Isn't this the case where there were more informants and undercover agents than there were actual group members? When you have multiple sources receiving (ie they are the intended recipients) decrypted messages that corroborate each other, the encryption aspect probably becomes all but moot.
- cyanydeez 5y ago
  No. Good conspiracy though.
  - tata71 5y ago
    You mean "conspiracy theory", right?
- verdverm 5y ago
  Not sure about this one, but there are questionable actions taken by informant insiders that many might consider entrapment. We've seen this with terrorist cases and more recently with the kidnapping the governor case. Would these people have gone as far as they did without the encouragement and material support of the agencies and informants? Who knows Not sure it's more informants, but they do seem to use more than one
- namlem 5y ago
  No, that was the plot against governor Whitmer.

I would assume the most likely explanation is an informant was included in the Signal conversations and forwarded the contents along. I wonder if we will get an official statement from Signal.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

Forwarded...or simply handed over their phone (after unlocking it) later as part of a plea deal.

tracnar 5y ago

I think Signal provides deniable authentication, i.e. you can forge messages which cannot be distinguished from a real conversations. I wonder if it has any impact legally speaking, but I guess it would not matter unless there's evidence of tampering.

zamadatix 5y ago
Signal uses sender certificates and end to end signing the messages. Even if you don't set a pin to enable registration lock and someone steals your phone number temporarily without you noticing and they know who to send the forged messages to everyone will get a big warning message about the key being changed and to verify it's the other person. Unless you just mean completely invent evidence on a controlled device in which case sure just edit the local message database like you would anything.
- tracnar 5y ago
  I'm referring to this cryptographic property: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_authentication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_authentication which means that once a message is received you cannot re-authenticate it, so evidence on any device is no better than with unencrypted messaging. This is in contrast with classic public key authentication like PGP which provides further evidence that the message is legit and was indeed sent by who it says.

beerandt 5y ago

Isn't this the case where there were more informants and undercover agents than there were actual group members? When you have multiple sources receiving (ie they are the intended recipients) decrypted messages that corroborate each other, the encryption aspect probably becomes all but moot.

cyanydeez 5y ago
No. Good conspiracy though.
- tata71 5y ago
  You mean "conspiracy theory", right?
verdverm 5y ago
Not sure about this one, but there are questionable actions taken by informant insiders that many might consider entrapment. We've seen this with terrorist cases and more recently with the kidnapping the governor case. Would these people have gone as far as they did without the encouragement and material support of the agencies and informants? Who knows Not sure it's more informants, but they do seem to use more than one
namlem 5y ago
No, that was the plot against governor Whitmer.