• HulkSmashBurgers@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    18 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 Signal platform, widely used by activists, is known for its end-to-end encryption; typically, the only way law enforcement can access messages is if they are directly included in the chat, are sent copies from a participant or have access to a member’s unlocked phone.

    The FBI said the information came from a “sensitive source with excellent access” and introduced the report as a warning about “extremist actors targeting law enforcement officers and federal facilities”.

    Yeah who knows how they got access to the chat. Could be they cracked the encryption or got access to someones phone who is in the chat. Either way I don’t think signal is secure enough (overall) for this kind of activity.

    • Zak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      18 hours ago

      who knows how they got access to the chat.

      I think it’s obvious that a “sensitive source with excellent access” means an informant inside the group gave them a copy of the messages.

    • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      Edit: What the fuck is wrong with me? I was thinking of Telegram.

      Three words borne of cynicism. Everyone here is focusing on exactly three words as opposed to the point of my message. Signal logs phone numbers required on sign-up and associates them with user accounts. A “legal” warrant can easily acquire this information and potentially nullify any anonymization Signal provides. Signal doesn’t have to require or retain this potentially identifiable information, but they do anyway.