Wouldn’t be surprised if they went undercover as a member.
The FBI spied on a Signal group chat of immigration activists, records reveal
Submitted 1 day ago by herseycokguzelolacak@lemmy.ml to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/21/fbi-signal-group-chat-immigration
Comments
THX1138@lemmy.ml 23 hours ago
h54@programming.dev 23 hours ago
My guess as well. Historically, the FBI has spent substantial resources infiltrating groups deemed even the smallest threat to state power.
JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Lowest barrier to entry
SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev 17 hours ago
Remember that most hacking is not done by breaking encryption and running code. It’s %100 social engineering. The weakest point is always a person.
SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
Most activism groups aren’t really screening for membership.
Usually it’s, “you want to join ? Cool, I’ll add you.”
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Oh so it’s an activist group that’s doing valuable work but has no need to background check for security. Makes sense, basically every activist or political group is on signal these days.
root@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
The FBI’s report from August, prepared by its New York division, does not make clear how the bureau accessed the Signal group
The question I’m most curious to have answered
otter@lemmy.ca 23 hours ago
Sounds like they joined a very large group chat as a member
The FBI, the documents show, gained access to conversations in a “courtwatch” Signal group that helps coordinate volunteer activists who monitor public proceedings at three New York federal immigration courts. The US government has repeatedly been accused of violating immigrants’ due process rights at those courts.
mienshao@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
I’ve always felt like Signal isn’t half as secure as it claims to be, and articles like this don’t help that feeling…
THX1138@lemmy.ml 22 hours ago
Why’s that exactly… who’s not to say they just joined the huge group undercover? Or randomly added to a sensitive group aka the journalist debacle a few months ago.
neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 20 hours ago
It’s as secure as it can be in the modern world really.
But none of the technology matters if you let an FBI agent into your super secure encrypted group chat.
Nima@leminal.space 17 hours ago
why is this downvoted? its not even that wild a comment. Signal fans need to chill a bit.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
I don’t know who still needs to hear this, so I’m going to say it again for the people in the back.
Assume every form of communication you have is being spied on.
If you’re using an app like signal or similar, make sure you and everyone else in the chat has encryption enabled.
Verify the other users in the chat.
Do not plan any activity that could be considered a criminal enterprise on an electronic device with a connection to the internet.
darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 hours ago
If you’re using an app like signal or similar, make sure you and everyone else in the chat has encryption enabled.
PSA: There’s no way to disable encryption in Signal.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
That’s why I said an app like signal. People assume that every app works the same. Telegram had issues with encryption where all parties didn’t have encryption enabled but one or more of the parties involved assumed the chat was still encrypted.
However I should probably change that to read more along the lines of: know the features and settings of your app and ensure that encryption settings are set to maximize the protection of privacy.
I’m gonna have to workshop that. It’s a mouthful.
Either way, thank you for pointing that out.
SupraMario@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
This had nothing to do with encryption. 99.99% of breaches aren’t some pen hack, it’s social engineering of someone to gain access. You have all the best software and practices in place, but if the dumbass on the fourth floor decides that they’re gonna let someone in who’s called them from Microsoft, then it doesn’t matter.
They let the FBI into the chat because they don’t know opsec for shit.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
I agree that you’re right. My thought was it was more likely that they socially engineered their way into getting invited to the chat.
This is why I said that a lot of people are the weakest link in their own secured communications networks.
mienshao@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
I just got downvoted in the comments above for basically having the EXACT same sentiment. I fucking hate it here.
Postimo@lemmy.zip 18 hours ago
The difference is they gave solid sound advice on opsec, and your comment seemed more in line with distrusting signal’s tech. One of these comments makes sense, the other doesn’t.
Engywuck@lemmy.zip 21 hours ago
Just don’t care about down votes.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Yeah. I dunno man. I’m sorry.
But like. A lot of the time security/privacy fails like this are user-inflicted. Either because people don’t understand the apps and services they use, or because other people are as vigilant about auditing their networks (the people, the hardware the software).
abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
Imagine saying “Feds should follow the law” is an extreme anarchist statement.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
It becomes one every anti left scare (red, but also green and lavender)
architect@thelemmy.club 1 day ago
Shocking revelation.
Ooops@feddit.org 23 hours ago
I guess “FBI infiltrated group of immigration activist” would be boring and not fitting the FUD about encrypted messaging…