Comment on Telegram is exposing their users privacy.
Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days agoSays right there in the subpoena “You are required to provide all information tied to the following phone numbers.” This means that the phone number requirement has already created a leak of private information in this instance, Signal simply could add more to it.
Additionally, that was posted in 2021. Since then, Signal has introduced usernames to “keep your phone number private.” Good for your average Joe Blow, but should another subpoena be submitted, this time stating “You are required to provide all information tied to the following usernames,” this time they will have something to give, being the user’s phone number, which can then be used to tie any use of Signal they already have proof of back to the individual.
Yeah, it’s great that they don’t log what you send, but that doesn’t help if they get proof in any other way. The fact is, because of the phone number requirement, anything you ever send on Signal can easily be tied back to you should it get out, and that subpoena alone is proof that it does.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 days ago
What information? The gov already had the phone number. They needed it to make the request.
No, they won’t. Here’s a more recent one.. Matter of fact, here’s a full list of all of them. Notice the lack of any usernames provided. What else ya got?
If they’re getting evidence outside of Signal, that’s outside the scope of this discussion.
…no. It can’t.
It’s proof that it doesn’t.
Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Please, use some critical thinking here.
Yes. That’s the leak. A phone number can bridge the gap between your messages and your identity.
You literally changed what I said to fit your narrative. Should a government agency already have access to a message and username, and make a legally valid request for the phone number associated with that username, Signal will be required by law to provide it, as it’s already know and proven that they have access to it. The subpoena you provided shows that they already have the phone numbers, so it is moot to this point.
No, it’s not, that was literally the point of the discussion to begin with, you are the one trying to change it.
Do you not know how phone numbers work? Generally if you go through a reputable provider, you’re going to be required to give at least your name. Additionally, even if you don’t give them your address, your location can pretty easily be extrapolated from things like the area codes and areas in which the phone number has been used. A warrant/subpoena is all it would take, and since that phone number is already tied to any messages they may have, that ties them directly to your identity.
This one barely even warrants a response. You’re either being plain obtuse or are genuinely failing to think critically about this, so I’ll break it down for you. They wouldn’t be serving a warrant to or subpoenaing Signal if they didn’t know the accounts in question were involved in something, which at minimum strongly implies that they already have some evidence of these users’ use of the service. Additionally, the fact that they’re subpoenaing so many at once implies they were in some kind of group on Signal.
Let’s try a hypothetical. Let’s say we have downtrodden citizens A-F, who are using Signal to talk about Bad Government. Now, let’s say someone from BG joins their group undercover and records those messages. Well, now BG wants to punish those poor DCs. If the undercover bad guy already has their phone numbers, job done, they can go find them. If not, all BG has to do is make a legal request for those phone numbers as associated with the usernames, which they do have. That would leave Signal with the choice of complying and directly harming these individuals, or becoming effectively a criminal entity within this territory.
Now, as for you, you have deflected, misquoted, misrepresented, and employed willful ignorance in this debate, and I will broker no further time for bad actors. Goodbye.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 days ago
Alright you clearly have no intention of an honest conversation so have a nice day.
Eheran@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
What’s it like to be a clown? Brother, I did not write the bad faith reply here, I was responding to it, as I am now doing once again with you. And as I said, I don’t make time for bad actors who like to run around falsifying information and lying about the contents of my own previous responses, which is why I blocked them, and which is why I’m now blocking you.
Get a life.