149
Search warrants for Signal user data, Santa Clara County (signal.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/signal@lemmy.ml
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 150 points 2 years ago (13 children)

Tl;dr: Signal gave the court timestamps for three out of nine phone numbers that the court demanded data on. The timestamps were the dates three phone numbers last registered their accounts with Signal. That’s it. That is all the data there was to give.

This is why I use Signal. This is why I donate monthly to Signal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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 @Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee makes it out to be in the top comment, imo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I tried to donate to signal, but they didn't accept my wise.com virtual credit card. That's the only type of payment I am willing to provide online, can't help it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah, currently it’s kind of a pain to donate to them. I’m pretty sure it can only be done directly through the app and it’s been a little buggy for me in the past; e.g. where the app claimed I wasn’t a monthly donor when, in fact, I am.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 21 points 2 years ago*

    The court told Signal not to publish this information six times, and then when the extension period ran out Signal went and published it. Balls

    (Granted, they could have published this 7 months ago, but they still did in the end)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •