Keep a close eye on who’s joining your group chats.
According to the FBI, a “sensitive source with excellent access” provided the information, dodging the requirement for a warrant.
So not a technological blunder, but a human one.
Where does it say a human was the source with excellent access?
It could very well mean a tool.
Also, why do people who defend supposed encrypted chat applications are always quick to shift the blame away without any context or proof. I’ve seen it multiple times now.
Do you any concrete evidence that it was an informant?
A tool wouldn’t dodge the requirement for a warrant so in that sentence it cannot replace a human.
If we’re to disregard the article then we can blame their access on whatever we want.The reason people believe Signal to be secure has mostly to do with third party analysis such as
https://odr.chalmers.se/server/api/core/bitstreams/527d7251-f7f4-4a6c-ac7b-f8253d174336/content
https://css.csail.mit.edu/6.858/2024/readings/signal-formal.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367350335_A_security_analysis_comparison_between_Signal_WhatsApp_and_TelegramE2EE isn’t worth much if the End is compromised though, so it could of course be a compromised android phone that is the “excellent source” but then FBI would need a warrant, I believe?
https://www.threatfabric.com/blogs/sturnus-banking-trojan-bypassing-whatsapp-telegram-and-signalOf course I don’t have any concrete evidence that it was an informant, I have never been to the US and have little interest in their immigration issues so why would I have?
I’m sorry but if the FBI is monitoring a chat log, they need a warrant. It doesn’t matter if they were mistakenly given access, they need to justify their reason for being there and to define the specific crime they are investigating.
Of course it won’t happen because we’ve given our government too much power to fuck around without consequences.
If someone who is not a government agent has the information, and gives it to the authorities, no, a warrant is not required.
Sorry, the mistake lies in the details. Private groups… They only work on a small scale and if you know each other in real life (or can otherwise verify that you are writing to the right people)… Otherwise, exactly this kind of thing can happen. That’s why I think the term “private groups” is simply wrong.
Maybe should be called “invite groups”, puts the burden of responsibility on the act of introducing someone.
Well, I have to admit that I’m referring to the first sentence in the article anyway. I have no idea what it’s called in Signal itself… these are features I don’t use.
The news is worse than you think. Trump is so bad, that our anarchist teaching are reaching his base, and shaking foundations of held capitalist beliefs, that Pete Hegseth directed everyone even remotely against the oppressive top to be executed on these “illegal immigrant raids.”
This is why they targeted LA, Chicago, Charlotte, and now New Orleans, because red scare 3.0 might actually work.
Apart from how unethical it is for a government to target activists instead of inviting them for dialogue, this could have been avoided with decent opsec. Be kind, be educational! ✊❤️🔥
Keep affinity groups small.
Oh no the FBI targeting a group trying to do things anyone with basic empathy would do what has the world come to? This is obviously shocking. In all seriousness it’s good to know they are still up to their old tricks you should always operate as if they are.
