• root@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The FBI’s report from August, prepared by its New York division, does not make clear how the bureau accessed the Signal group

    The question I’m most curious to have answered

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Sounds like they joined a large group chat as a member

      The FBI, the documents show, gained access to conversations in a “courtwatch” Signal group that helps coordinate volunteer activists who monitor public proceedings at three New York federal immigration courts. The US government has repeatedly been accused of violating immigrants’ due process rights at those courts.

    • mienshao@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’ve always felt like Signal isn’t half as secure as it claims to be, and articles like this don’t help that feeling…

      • Nima@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 minute ago

        why is this downvoted? its not even that wild a comment. Signal fans need to chill a bit.

      • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It’s as secure as it can be in the modern world really.

        But none of the technology matters if you let an FBI agent into your super secure encrypted group chat.

      • THX-1138@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Why’s that exactly… who’s not to say they just joined the huge group undercover? Or randomly added to a sensitive group aka the journalist debacle a few months ago.

        • mienshao@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I’m literally just talking, giving an opinion. Nothing was that fucking deep, just talking about my feelings about how a supposedly secure encrypted website was infiltrated by the motherfucking FBI…

          And I’m downvoted? Fucking why? Every day Lemmy gets a little more like Reddit. Shit like this is why the numbers go down. Just spread that negativity—make everyone feel like shit.

          Downvote this while you’re at it! Fuck yall!

          • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Your feelings and opinion are wrong in this case.

            They could mislead people into sharing your opinion/feeling and then you’d both be wrong.

            You’re getting downvoted because you’re wrong and are contributing the opposite of a benefit to a conversation around the security of signal without any facts or proof other than your “gut”.

            That is not upvote worthy. People are correct to downvote your comment to let others know that they shouldn’t take it with any degree of seriousness. That’s how this works. That’s how the whole comment voting system is supposed to work.

            Your feelings are not special when they muddy the waters of facts.

          • eodur@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Many subscribe to the “vote on comments based on how useful the information is” theory, myself included. Based on that your feeling, despite how valuable it is to you personally, isn’t particularly valuable to the discussion. Its not personal.