Signal was already made to hand over all the data they stored for one account at least in the US, here is a video describing how that went: https://youtu.be/3oPeIbpA5x8
You obviously didn’t watch the video, the point made is not that there is information being handed over (every company has to comply with legal orders), but that Singal handed over nothing except 2 timestamps shared as integers.
I get not watching the video, I didn’t, but why reply then? It’s obvious you would be off the mark. Also, sometimes the description is enough to get what a video is about, here it was.
I only opened the embedded player, I didn’t even bother wasting an actual click on that video. And why reply? Because they’ve made a stupid point about not having watched the video. That’s why. If he wanted to make a point he could’ve cited an article with the relevant tidbits instead.
You are correct though, I did indeed not watch it. Hence I misunderstood the comment I was answering to as being negative towards Signal. Thanks for the added context.
There is a difference between judiciary and intelligence context in these kind of things, if you use a tool in a judiciary context you burn it (as with the FBI malware on Playpen). So it’s probably better to keep it low, even avoid to use some of the information gathered, so you keep the intelligence source.
I’m not saying that’s what’s going on, just that this is not an absolute proof.
Signal was already made to hand over all the data they stored for one account at least in the US, here is a video describing how that went: https://youtu.be/3oPeIbpA5x8
Tell me though, which company will not hand over what data they have when asked by their country’s judiciary?
The question here is how much data they keep. Strict legal minimum or more.
You obviously didn’t watch the video, the point made is not that there is information being handed over (every company has to comply with legal orders), but that Singal handed over nothing except 2 timestamps shared as integers.
Removed by mod
Here’s what the video is based on: https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/
I get not watching the video, I didn’t, but why reply then? It’s obvious you would be off the mark. Also, sometimes the description is enough to get what a video is about, here it was.
I only opened the embedded player, I didn’t even bother wasting an actual click on that video. And why reply? Because they’ve made a stupid point about not having watched the video. That’s why. If he wanted to make a point he could’ve cited an article with the relevant tidbits instead.
They weren’t talking about your reply.
Then they should reply to whoever they meant to reply to.
They were very obviously speaking about the sequence of comments in the above thread and not about you specifically.
You are correct though, I did indeed not watch it. Hence I misunderstood the comment I was answering to as being negative towards Signal. Thanks for the added context.
While this is true it’s still good to add nuance.
There is a difference between judiciary and intelligence context in these kind of things, if you use a tool in a judiciary context you burn it (as with the FBI malware on Playpen). So it’s probably better to keep it low, even avoid to use some of the information gathered, so you keep the intelligence source.
I’m not saying that’s what’s going on, just that this is not an absolute proof.
deleted by creator