8 ms·
I don't know signal very well but when I have spoken to others about it they mention that the phone number is the only metadata they will have access to. This
by ddtaylor 9mo ago
I don't know signal very well but when I have spoken to others about it they mention that the phone number is the only metadata they will have access to.
This seems like a good example of that being enough metadata to be a big problem.
- spankalee 9mo agoI don't think it's much of a problem at all. Many of the protesters and observers are not hiding their identities, so finding their phone number isn't a problem. Even with content, coordinating legal activities isn't a problem either.
- Psillisp 9mo agoGovernment intimidation of the practice of constitutional rights... what ever could go wrong.
- spankalee 9mo agoI was replying specifically to this: > This seems like a good example of that being enough metadata to be a big problem I was not saying it's not a problem that the feds are doing this, because that's not what I was replying to.
- Psillisp 9mo agoYou are going to need to clarify more. I have no idea what you are for.
- rationalist 9mo agoWhy does a person have to be "for" something?
- Psillisp 9mo ago[flagged]
- Volundr 9mo agoThe statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose.
- rationalist 9mo ago"sleaze"?
- refurb 9mo agoThat seems like a weak argument. I mean, carrying a weapon is a 2nd amendment right, but if I bring it to a protest and then start intimidating people with it, the police going after me is not "Government intimidation of the practice of constitutional rights". Protesting is a constitution right, but if you break the law while protesting, you're fair game for prosecution.
- fusslo 9mo agoI would never agree with you. protestors behaving legally or practicing civil disobedience can still have their lives ruined by people in power. https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-supreme-court-slams-ex-prosecutor-fake-gang-charges-21553702/ https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-supreme-court-s...
- mrtesthah 9mo agoThis is the price we pay to defend our rights. I would also expect any reasonable grand jury to reject such charges given how flagrantly the government has attempted to bias the public against protesters.
- ajross 9mo ago> protestors behaving legally or practicing civil disobedience can still have their lives ruined by people in power. They surely can. But the point was more than the people in power don't really need Signal metadata to do that. On the lists of security concerns modern protestors need to be worrying about, Signal really just isn't very high.
- scoofy 9mo agoThe literal point of civil disobedience is accepting that you may end up in jail: "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law." -- Letter from the Birmingham Jail, MLK Jr: https://people.uncw.edu/schmidt/201Stuff/F14/B%20SophistSocrates/MLK%20letter.html https://people.uncw.edu/schmidt/201Stuff/F14/B%20SophistSocr...
- estearum 9mo agoYeah, that doesn't make it "not a problem."
- EA-3167 9mo agoIt makes it a problem that's inherently present for any act of civil disobedience, unless you truly believe that you can hide from the US government. I'm pretty sure that all of the technical workarounds in the world, all of the tradecraft, won't save you from the weakest link in your social network. That's life, if you can't take that heat stay out of the kitchen. It's also why elections are a much safer and more reliable way to enact change in your country than "direct action" is except under the most dire of circumstances.
- ruined 9mo agoconspiracy charges are a thing, and they'll only need a few examples of manifestly illegal interference. it will be quite easy for a prosecutor to charge lots of these people. it's been done for less, and even if the case is thrown out it can drag on for years and involve jail time before any conviction.
- spankalee 9mo agoIf they could arrest people for what they've been doing, they would have already arrested people. And they have arrested a few here and there for "assault" (things like daring to react when being shoved by an annoyed officer), but the thing that's really pissing DHS off is that the protesters and observers are not breaking the law.
- ruined 9mo agoone person walking away from a police encounter doesn't mean police think that person did not break the law. prosecutors may take their time and file charges at their leisure.
- JohnFen 9mo agoThat may be true in the abstract (although it doesn't matter if the cops think you're breaking the law. What matters is whether or not a judge does). However, neither Border patrol nor ICE have been exhibiting thoughtfulness or patience, so I doubt they're playing any such long game.
- missingcolours 9mo agoRemember that most of the participants in J6 walked away and were later rounded up and arrested across the country once the FBI had collected voluminous digital and surveillance evidence to support prosecution.
- direwolf20 9mo agoThat was a different, Biden's, FBI
- cyberge99 9mo agoHow do you connect a strangers face to a phone number? Or does it require the ELITE app?
- nicce 9mo agoPalantir steps in indeed
- ls612 9mo agoSome of the signal messages I've seen screenshotted (granted screenshots can be altered) make it seem like the participants have access to some sort of ALPR data to track vehicles that they think are ICE. That would probably be an illegal use of that data if true.
- ceejayoz 9mo ago> make it seem like the participants have access to some sort of ALPR data to track vehicles The whole reason cops love ALPR data is anyone's allowed to collect it, so they don't need a warrant.
- mikkupikku 9mo agoThe government falling victim to ALPR for once might actually be the push we need to get some reform. That said, they'll probably try to ban it for everybody but themselves. Never before have they had such comprehensive surveillance and I don't expect them to give it up easily.
- ls612 9mo agoIt’s probably illegal for a state law enforcement official (presumably) to share it with randos on the internet though.
- ceejayoz 9mo agoI remember having to explain to you that the CFAA doesn't apply to German citizens in Germany committing acts against a German website, so I'll take that legal advice with a few Dead Seas worth of salt. Tow trucks have ALPR cameras to find repossessions. Plenty of private options for obtaining that sort of data; you can buy your own for a couple hundred bucks. https://linovision.com/products/2-mp-deepinview-anpr-box-with-housing-camera https://linovision.com/products/2-mp-deepinview-anpr-box-wit...
- tptacek 9mo agoPresumably this is data taken from interdicted phones of people in the groups, not, like, a traffic-analytic attack on Signal itself.
- tucnak 9mo agoI wonder whether the protesters could opt for offshore alternatives that don't require exposing their phone number to a company that could be compelled to reveal it by US law. For example, there is Threema[1], a Swiss option priced at 5 euros one-time. It is interesting on Android as you can pay anonymously[2], therefore it doesn't depend on Google Play and its services (they offer Threema Push services of their own.) If your threat model includes traffic analysis, likely none of it would make much difference as far as US state-side sigint product line is concerned, but with Threema a determined party might as well get a chance! Arguably, the US protest organisers must be prepared for the situation to escalate, and adjust their security model accordingly: GrapheneOS, Mullvad subscription with DAITA countermeasures, Threema for Android, pay for everything with Monero? [1] https://threema.com/ https://threema.com/ [2] https://shop.threema.ch/en https://shop.threema.ch/en
- chocolatkey 9mo agoNote that Threema has had a recent change in ownership to a German investment firm. Supposedly nothing will change but I can’t help but be wary
- dylan604 9mo agoJust being owned by an offshore company doesn't mean that they still can't be infiltrated. But as you pointed out, just because Company A creates an app does not mean that Company B can't come in later to take control.
- tucnak 9mo agoThe alarming extent of US-affiliated signals intelligence collection is well-documented, but in the case of Threema it's largely inconsequential; you can still purchase the license for it anonymously, optionally build from source, and actively resist traffic analysis when using it. That is to say: it allows a determined party to largely remain anonymous even in the face of upstream provider's compromise.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- suriya-ganesh 9mo agobut this is not a technical attack that returns the metadata. much more closer to the $5 wrench attack https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- causalscience 9mo agoI've been hearing for years people say "Signal requires phone number therefore I don't use it", and I've been hearing them mocked for years. Turns out they were right.
- rainonmoon 9mo agoAbsolutely nothing in this article is related to feds using conversation metadata to map participants, so, no they weren’t.
- causalscience 9mo ago[flagged]
- gosub100 9mo agoWe don't do the "duct-tape an insult to the end to drive your point harder" gimmick here. It will lead to loss of your account.
- dylan604 9mo agowhoa, losing access to a throwaway account created for specifically posting trolling comments? i'm sure they're shaking in their boots at the prospect
- causalscience 9mo agoThis throwaway account wasn't created specifically for posting trolling comments, this is just my personality :-(
- causalscience 9mo ago[flagged]
- jvanderbot 9mo agoIf you follow the X chatter on this, some folks got into the groups and tracked all the numbers, their contributions, and when they went "on shift" or "off". I don't really think Signal tech has anything to do with this.
- charliebwrites 9mo agoThe steps to trouble: - identify who owns the number - compel that person to give unlocked phone - government can read messages of _all_ people in group chat not just that person Corollary: Disappearing messages severely limits what can be read
- SR2Z 9mo agoUnless they compel people at gunpoint (which prevents the government from bringing a case), they will probably not have much luck with this. As soon as a user sets up a passcode or other lock on their phone, it is beyond the ability of even most parts of the US government to look inside. It's much more likely that the government convinces one member of the group chat to turn on the other members and give up their phone numbers.
- hedayet 9mo agoor convince one member of a group chat to show their group chat...
- pixl97 9mo agohttps://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- janalsncm 9mo agoThis is accurate, but the important point is that threatening people with wrenches isn’t scalable in the way mass surveillance is. The problem with mass surveillance is the “mass” part: warrantless fishing expeditions.
- OhMeadhbh 9mo agohunh. we haven't even started talking about stingray, tracking radios and so forth.
- fruitworks 9mo agoit is difficult to wrench someone when you do not know who they are
- UncleOxidant 9mo agoWas starting to think about setting up a neighborhood Signal group, but now thinking that maybe something like Briar might be safer... only problem is that Briar only works on Android which is going to exclude a lot of iPhone users.
- jaxefayo 9mo agoWhat about BitChat?
- adolph 9mo agoWhy wouldn't you just use random abandoned forums or web article message threads? Iirc this is what teenagers used to do when schools banned various social media but not devices. Just put the URL in a discrete qr code that only a person in the neighborhood could see.
- bsimpson 9mo agoI spent a dozen years in SF, where my friend circles routinely used Signal. It's my primary messaging app, including to family and childhood friends. I live in NY now. Just today, I got a message from a close friend who also did SF->NY "I'm deleting Signal to get more space on my phone, because nobody here uses it. Find me on WhatsApp or SMS." To a naïve audience, Signal can have a stigma "I don't do anything illegal, so why should I bother maintaining yet-another messenger whose core competency is private messaging?" Signal is reasonably mainstream, and there are still a lot of people who won't use it. I suspect you'll have an uphill battle using something even more obscure.
- not_a_bot_4sho 9mo ago> Signal can have a stigma "I don't do anything illegal, so why should I bother ..." Aside: I see similar attitudes when I mention I use VPN all of the time
- tehjoker 9mo agoI highly recommend this book. It goes into who funds these things. https://www.amazon.com/Surveillance-Valley-Military-History-Internet/dp/1610398025 https://www.amazon.com/Surveillance-Valley-Military-History-...