3 ms·
Proving it seems exceedingly difficult unless a party to the convo testifies it was done to evade potential discovery. Any record suggesting use of Signal for w
by banish-m4 2y ago
Proving it seems exceedingly difficult unless a party to the convo testifies it was done to evade potential discovery. Any record suggesting use of Signal for work purposes could be bad for their side.
One prime directive of megacorp comms, don't write down anything that could be used as evidence. If possible, have an unscheduled chat in person.
- ranger_danger 2y ago> in person I'm curious how using Signal in this way is any different from talking in person. Nobody considers a private conversation during a walk in the park to be destroying evidence just because it wasn't recorded.
- banish-m4 2y agoSignal can leave metadata (phone numbers) behind whereas talking in person doesn't usually unless some comms were used to suggest it, security footage, or cell phone pings were to allude it. I'm wondering if evidence of a conversation occurring can be used in a legal context as circumstantial evidence or to suggest suspicion or intrigue.
- ameister14 2y agoBecause when using signal it was recorded, just deleted after two weeks.
- ranger_danger 2y agoWhere do you draw the line at "recorded"... is a 5-second disappearing message still "recorded" ?
- ameister14 2y ago>is a 5-second disappearing message still "recorded" Yes. What's the difference, functionally? Ignore the time limitation, what is the command being given, in the end?