5 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
Government intimidation of the practice of constitutional rights... what ever could go wrong.
- spankalee 9mo ago
  I 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 ago
    You are going to need to clarify more. I have no idea what you are for.
    - rationalist 9mo ago
      Why does a person have to be "for" something?
      - Psillisp 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        Volundr 9mo ago
        The 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 ago
  That 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 ago
I 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 ago
  This 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Yeah, that doesn't make it "not a problem."
    - EA-3167 9mo ago
      It 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 ago
conspiracy 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    one 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 ago
      That 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 ago
    Remember 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 ago
      That was a different, Biden's, FBI
cyberge99 9mo ago
How do you connect a strangers face to a phone number? Or does it require the ELITE app?
- nicce 9mo ago
  Palantir steps in indeed
ls612 9mo ago
Some 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 ago
    The 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 ago
    It’s probably illegal for a state law enforcement official (presumably) to share it with randos on the internet though.
    - ceejayoz 9mo ago
      I 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...

Psillisp 9mo ago

Government intimidation of the practice of constitutional rights... what ever could go wrong.

spankalee 9mo ago
I 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 ago
  You are going to need to clarify more. I have no idea what you are for.
  - rationalist 9mo ago
    Why does a person have to be "for" something?
    - Psillisp 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - Volundr 9mo ago
        The 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 ago
That 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 ago

I 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 ago
This 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Yeah, that doesn't make it "not a problem."
  - EA-3167 9mo ago
    It 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 ago

conspiracy 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 ago
If 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 ago
  one 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 ago
    That 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 ago
  Remember 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 ago
    That was a different, Biden's, FBI

cyberge99 9mo ago

How do you connect a strangers face to a phone number? Or does it require the ELITE app?

nicce 9mo ago
Palantir steps in indeed

ls612 9mo ago

Some 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 ago
  The 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 ago
  It’s probably illegal for a state law enforcement official (presumably) to share it with randos on the internet though.
  - ceejayoz 9mo ago
    I 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...