190
The FBI is investigating Minnesota Signal chats tracking ICE, Patel says (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

FBI Director Kash Patel said Monday that he had opened an investigation into the Signal group text chats that Minnesota residents are using to share information about federal immigration agents’ movements, launching a new front in the Trump administration’s conflict there with potential free speech implications.

Patel said in an interview with conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that he wanted to know whether any Minnesota residents had put federal agents “in harm’s way” with activities such as sharing agents’ license plate numbers and locations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 9 months ago (8 children)

But doesn't Signal support disappearing messages? And end to end encryption? Meaning they'd need a recipient's phone in order to see them at all. Although, now that I'm thinking it through in this context of a big group chat full of people you don't/barely know, I can see the higher risk profile. So it's bad in this circumstance, assuming messages are persistent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    Disappearing messages are a client side convention, they are not part of the protocol, they cannot be enforced. There are signal clients that never expire messages, screen capture, archive, etc

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    Yeah, I used to be in a group where I'm pretty sure a couple people were informants or agents. A couple people would fed-post in the Signal group sometimes.There were leaks that showed the FBI was indeed "monitoring" the group. I suspect any lefty group is infiltrated is some way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    But doesn't Signal support disappearing messages?

    Yes, and? It also supports screenshots.

    Meaning they'd need a recipient's phone in order to see them at all.

    Which is what they have.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    I'm surprised screenshots are allowed in the app at all, that's indeed pretty shit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    By default they're not but I mean you could just pick up another camera and take a picture of the screen anyway, so you're not really preventing anything by disabling it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Right, so how do the other solutions solve this problem then? Kinda undercutting your own security argument with ways that NOTHING is actually secure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    so how do the other solutions solve this problem then?

    As I've already explained, by allowing for multiple and anonymous accounts without a phone number requirement.

    They can take all the screenshots they want but there's nothing of value for them to target the participants.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Yeah, I guess that's true - I was thinking about keeping the contents of the messages secure when I asked. But so long as you don't give enough context to dox yourself, you're right that at least individuals are not directly identifyable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent