7
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Well, i'm not fluent in legalese, but isn't the search order also exclusively asking for those two datapoints and nothing more? They're not asking for message timestamps e.g. or other metadata.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

Good catch. It does look like that. Maybe the court already knew that Signal doesn’t have any data to hand over beyond the registration dates?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe the court already knew that Signal doesn’t have any data to hand over beyond the registration dates?

That seems likely the case based off the series of previous warrants & subpoenas where they kept having to explain that they didn't have any of that other shit to give.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago

Are you trying to turn this into "So, they got exactly what they wanted! Signal cooperated and are thus not secure!"?

[-] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That is not what I'm trying, no. Sorry if it came across like that.
My point is, that this isn't an effective proof of a zero knowledge approach. In their blogpost, Signal says they don't store anything, but this specific instance of a search warrant doesn't serve to prove that.
It is great of them that they publish when and what they are asked to disclose, that practice is definitly appreciated. I do trust Signal, it is my main messenger.
This is just not the stresstest @[email protected] makes it out to be in the top comment, imo.

this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
7 points (100.0% liked)

The Signal messenger and protocol.

1598 readers
1 users here now

https://signal.org/

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS