8 ms·

i suppose what he means is that the phones of protestors which have signal chat will be investigated. Assuming they dont have disappearing messages activated,

by nimbius 8mo ago

i suppose what he means is that the phones of protestors which have signal chat will be investigated. Assuming they dont have disappearing messages activated, and assuming any protestors willingly unlock their phones.

mrtesthah 8mo ago
Unfortunately not everyone in a group chat may be fully vetted, in which case they could be feds collecting "evidence". Some chats may have publicly circulating invite links. But any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis is doing the business of an authoritarian dictator. This is fully protected speech and assembly.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis If you say something illegal in a chat with a cop in it, or say it in public, I don’t think there are Constitutional issues with the police using that as evidence. (If you didn’t say anything illegal, you have a valid defence.)
  - mrtesthah 8mo ago
    Sure. Can you give me an example of something that's illegal to say in a group chat that coordinates legal observers?
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > Can you give me an example of something that's illegal to say in a group chat that coordinates legal observers? Actual examples? No. I don’t believe it happened. Hypothetical examples? Co-ordinating gunning down ICE agents. If the chat stays on topic to “coordinat[ing] legal observers,” there shouldn’t be liability. The risk with open chats is they can go off topic if unmoderated.
    - docdeek 8mo ago
      One of the things that has been circulating in videos of the Signal chats online is someone confirming/not confirming that certain license plates are related to ICE. Perhaps if someone is misusing their access to an administrative or law enforcement database to ‘run plates’ and report on who owns the vehicle, this could be unlawful. I don’t know if anyone IS using such a database unlawfully - they might be checking the plate number against an Excel sheet they created based on other reports from people opposed to ICE - but if its a databse they shouldn’t be using in this way, if might be against the law.
      - JohnFen 8mo ago
        > Perhaps if someone is misusing their access to an administrative or law enforcement database to ‘run plates’ and report on who owns the vehicle, this could be unlawful. But that's not an example of something that would be illegal to say in a chat. It would be an example of something that's illegal to do regardless of the chat.
        defen 8mo ago
        I don't think the idea is that the speech in the chat is inherently illegal; it's that it could be used as evidence of illegal activity. Using that example - if someone in the chat asks about plate XYZ at 10AM, and if a phone linked to "Bob" posts to the group chat at 10:04 AM that license plate XYZ is used by ICE, and the internal logs show that Bob queried the ICE database about plate XYZ at 10:02 AM, and no one else queried that license plate in the past month, that is pretty good evidence that Bob violated the CFAA.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      "ICE are at (address)" apparently
  - tremon 8mo ago
    Not sure what difference that makes, it's not like the current regime limits their actions to respect constitutional bounds.
- dylan604 8mo ago
  > Unfortunately not everyone in a group chat may be fully vetted, Curious how many group chats have unknowingly allowed a well known journalist into their groups.
joshgachnang 8mo ago
Or has biometric login turned on and didn't lock their phone behind a passcode before being arrested.
PrettiGoodDead 8mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
craftkiller 8mo ago
> willingly unlock their phones Or they are running any mainstream iPhone or Android phone, they've unlocked the phone at least once since their last reboot, and the police have access to graykey. Not sure what the current state of things is, since we rely on leaked documents, but my take-away from the 2024 leaks was GrapheneOS Before First Unlock (BFU) is the only defense.
- lugu 8mo ago
  https://freedom.press/digisec/blog/new-leaks-on-police-phone-unlocking-tech/ https://freedom.press/digisec/blog/new-leaks-on-police-phone...
- ActorNightly 8mo ago
  >is the only defense. Or you know, the 2nd amendment. Id be willing to bet that ICE would have a much smaller impact if they would be met with bullets instead of cameras. In the end, what ICE is doing doesn't really matter to Trump, as long as MAGA believes that things are being done, even if nothing is being done, he doesn't care.
  - dylan604 8mo ago
    That's a strange take. It also feels like exactly what they are hoping to have happen. Encouraging gun violence is not something condoned, so not sure why you are posting that nonsense. Are you an agitator?
    - convolvatron 8mo ago
      I wish we would stop using that word 'agitator', while I understand the subjective idea that someone is just trying to stir up trouble, it kind of undermines the idea that we should be able to express opinions no matter how distasteful. and apparently it now a perfectly valid reason for the state to execute someone without being charged or a trial.
      - dylan604 8mo ago
politelemon 8mo ago
Unlocking isn't necessary, We've already seen that Apple and Google will turn data over on government requests. https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-complies-percent-us-government-requests-customer-data-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-complies-percent-us-go...
- lenerdenator 8mo ago
  Non-paywalled link?
  - layer8 8mo ago
    https://archive.ph/copyn https://archive.ph/copyn It wasn’t paywalled for me, BTW.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
spiderice 8mo ago
There are already people on X who have infiltrated chats and posted screen captures. Getting the full content of the chats isn't going to be difficult. They have way to many people in them.

by nimbius 8mo ago

mrtesthah 8mo ago

Unfortunately not everyone in a group chat may be fully vetted, in which case they could be feds collecting "evidence". Some chats may have publicly circulating invite links. But any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis is doing the business of an authoritarian dictator. This is fully protected speech and assembly.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> any judge that doesn't immediately reject such cases on a first-amendment basis If you say something illegal in a chat with a cop in it, or say it in public, I don’t think there are Constitutional issues with the police using that as evidence. (If you didn’t say anything illegal, you have a valid defence.)
- mrtesthah 8mo ago
  Sure. Can you give me an example of something that's illegal to say in a group chat that coordinates legal observers?
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Can you give me an example of something that's illegal to say in a group chat that coordinates legal observers? Actual examples? No. I don’t believe it happened. Hypothetical examples? Co-ordinating gunning down ICE agents. If the chat stays on topic to “coordinat[ing] legal observers,” there shouldn’t be liability. The risk with open chats is they can go off topic if unmoderated.
  - docdeek 8mo ago
    One of the things that has been circulating in videos of the Signal chats online is someone confirming/not confirming that certain license plates are related to ICE. Perhaps if someone is misusing their access to an administrative or law enforcement database to ‘run plates’ and report on who owns the vehicle, this could be unlawful. I don’t know if anyone IS using such a database unlawfully - they might be checking the plate number against an Excel sheet they created based on other reports from people opposed to ICE - but if its a databse they shouldn’t be using in this way, if might be against the law.
    - JohnFen 8mo ago
      > Perhaps if someone is misusing their access to an administrative or law enforcement database to ‘run plates’ and report on who owns the vehicle, this could be unlawful. But that's not an example of something that would be illegal to say in a chat. It would be an example of something that's illegal to do regardless of the chat.
      - defen 8mo ago
        I don't think the idea is that the speech in the chat is inherently illegal; it's that it could be used as evidence of illegal activity. Using that example - if someone in the chat asks about plate XYZ at 10AM, and if a phone linked to "Bob" posts to the group chat at 10:04 AM that license plate XYZ is used by ICE, and the internal logs show that Bob queried the ICE database about plate XYZ at 10:02 AM, and no one else queried that license plate in the past month, that is pretty good evidence that Bob violated the CFAA.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    "ICE are at (address)" apparently
- tremon 8mo ago
  Not sure what difference that makes, it's not like the current regime limits their actions to respect constitutional bounds.
dylan604 8mo ago
> Unfortunately not everyone in a group chat may be fully vetted, Curious how many group chats have unknowingly allowed a well known journalist into their groups.

joshgachnang 8mo ago

Or has biometric login turned on and didn't lock their phone behind a passcode before being arrested.

PrettiGoodDead 8mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

craftkiller 8mo ago

> willingly unlock their phones Or they are running any mainstream iPhone or Android phone, they've unlocked the phone at least once since their last reboot, and the police have access to graykey. Not sure what the current state of things is, since we rely on leaked documents, but my take-away from the 2024 leaks was GrapheneOS Before First Unlock (BFU) is the only defense.

lugu 8mo ago
https://freedom.press/digisec/blog/new-leaks-on-police-phone-unlocking-tech/ https://freedom.press/digisec/blog/new-leaks-on-police-phone...
ActorNightly 8mo ago
>is the only defense. Or you know, the 2nd amendment. Id be willing to bet that ICE would have a much smaller impact if they would be met with bullets instead of cameras. In the end, what ICE is doing doesn't really matter to Trump, as long as MAGA believes that things are being done, even if nothing is being done, he doesn't care.
- dylan604 8mo ago
  That's a strange take. It also feels like exactly what they are hoping to have happen. Encouraging gun violence is not something condoned, so not sure why you are posting that nonsense. Are you an agitator?
  - convolvatron 8mo ago
    I wish we would stop using that word 'agitator', while I understand the subjective idea that someone is just trying to stir up trouble, it kind of undermines the idea that we should be able to express opinions no matter how distasteful. and apparently it now a perfectly valid reason for the state to execute someone without being charged or a trial.
    - dylan604 8mo ago

politelemon 8mo ago

Unlocking isn't necessary, We've already seen that Apple and Google will turn data over on government requests. https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-complies-percent-us-government-requests-customer-data-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-complies-percent-us-go...

lenerdenator 8mo ago
Non-paywalled link?
- layer8 8mo ago
  https://archive.ph/copyn https://archive.ph/copyn It wasn’t paywalled for me, BTW.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

spiderice 8mo ago

There are already people on X who have infiltrated chats and posted screen captures. Getting the full content of the chats isn't going to be difficult. They have way to many people in them.