US government is definitely against encryption, but there is a difference between using encryption/disappearing messages when you are not indicted and when you are indicted. First one is fine, second one is against the 18 U.S. Code § 1519 law.
Depends on when you started using it, when you were served with a notice to retain, and whether you used Signal to discuss content that falls under said notice.
Either way, encryption and/or auto-delete isn’t the enemy here.
They used it for 15 months after being given notice to retain. It’s in the article.
And by the function of disappearing messages you can’t know the content, so courts in almost all cases notify the jury that information destroyed was negative for the defendant.
Yep, totally agree. Just pointing out that the tech is not the enemy here, it’s the intent of the user(s). I’m a big fan of Signal, and they’ve done nothing wrong here, though to some the headline could imply that the tool is complicit here.
US government is definitely against encryption, but there is a difference between using encryption/disappearing messages when you are not indicted and when you are indicted. First one is fine, second one is against the 18 U.S. Code § 1519 law.
Depends on when you started using it, when you were served with a notice to retain, and whether you used Signal to discuss content that falls under said notice.
Either way, encryption and/or auto-delete isn’t the enemy here.
They used it for 15 months after being given notice to retain. It’s in the article.
And by the function of disappearing messages you can’t know the content, so courts in almost all cases notify the jury that information destroyed was negative for the defendant.
Yep, totally agree. Just pointing out that the tech is not the enemy here, it’s the intent of the user(s). I’m a big fan of Signal, and they’ve done nothing wrong here, though to some the headline could imply that the tool is complicit here.