3 ms·
> Or do they want us to believe 3-letter U.S. agencies don't have access to Signal right now? Is this some publicity stunt? [Citation needed]
by bayindirh 2y ago
> Or do they want us to believe 3-letter U.S. agencies don't have access to Signal right now? Is this some publicity stunt?
[Citation needed]
- gcnnbdff 2y ago[dead]
- badlibrarian 2y agoI believe the citation falls under "street smarts" as the WikiLeaks press release mentioned Signal explicitly. Whether this was a subtle outing the origin of the tool itself is left as an exercise for the reader. Regardless, the threat vector is accessing the data before encryption anyway. And drawing attention to yourself by running certain apps and services in the first place. There's a lot of mathematicians in maryland and those who studied the history often land on "if they want you, they got you."
- bayindirh 2y agoI'm on the same page with you, mathematicians and the math itself. I'm not a complete stranger to whats and hows of the craft either. I honestly wanted a source to investigate the claim further, not to stab the commenter. OTOH, you have given a couple of leads, which I can follow deeper. Thanks!
- mathfailure 2y agoYou have to think from time to time. If there are even NDAs that forbid mentioning their existence - how would you cite them? And here we're talking about 3-letter agencies in U.S. Of course they have the access and of course you can't ever prove it. One could even argue that Julian Assange didn't leak anything and it's all lies and he can't prove it, lol.