The FBI asked Signal to hand over user data, Signal complied by giving them nothing

[poochyena]

49 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

and not the place that actually provides the service.

Signal does not provide the service of giving out user information.

 

50 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

that you expect to not get a cookie from me

I never said that.

 

51 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

The FBI demanded Signal turn over all info they had about this user, which they did.

Exactly. The FBI got exactly what they demanded.

 

52 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

They didn't demand a request, that's stupid and makes no sense.

The point is they asked for what they had, not demand information. If they demanded IP addresses, and Signal was not able to provide it, Signal would face charges. If the FBI truly expected the list of information they asked for, they would not have accepted anything less than that full list of information.

57 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

In legal terms, a request is like a cease and desist. Stop doing this thing or we will sue.

yes, thats exactly what I'm trying to say here. The FBI requested X, Y, and Z, but Signal only provided Z. Signal did not face consequences for only providing Z. Therefore, it was a request for information they had, not a demand and expectation that they provide X, Y, and Z.

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

If they demanded IP addresses, and Signal was not able to provide it, Signal would face charges.

I dont think so. You cannot convict anyone for not giving you something they never had in their possession.....

[poochyena]

43 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

You cannot convict anyone for not giving you something they never had in their possession.....

They could try to, specifically if they thought they DID have it, which is the point.

Anyways, the US tortures people in guantanamo bay for information they don't have, so its absolutely a thing for the government to demand information from someone, and punish them for not giving that information, even if they don't have it.

[tikker]

Man this thread sure is something. My impressions so far: companies like this are somehow supposed to be above the law, Signal is a bad guy for complying with a court order and the government/FBI will bring down vengeance upon you if you cannot hand over everything that was requested.

 

Don't people think we might be elevating privacy-oriented companies too much to almost god-like status? One minute Signal is praised for logging almost nothing, but the second they comply with the law and provided requested information (not just "handed out") they become a black sheep? Of all the things that companies could hand out, you are upset because of a creation date and last connection date. For once there is a company that does indeed hardly log anything, yet they're still guilty until proven innocent, which of course can never happen as we only know guilty and more guilty.

 

I almost feel as if we'll have a revolution over the next decades overthrowing our current justice system, only to next century "discover" the nice thing of having a court and things.

[JZStudios]

23 hours ago, poochyena said:

Signal does not provide the service of giving out user information.

 

I never said that.

 

Exactly. The FBI got exactly what they demanded.

 

The point is they asked for what they had, not demand information. If they demanded IP addresses, and Signal was not able to provide it, Signal would face charges. If the FBI truly expected the list of information they asked for, they would not have accepted anything less than that full list of information.

yes, thats exactly what I'm trying to say here. The FBI requested X, Y, and Z, but Signal only provided Z. Signal did not face consequences for only providing Z. Therefore, it was a request for information they had, not a demand and expectation that they provide X, Y, and Z.

They did though. They gave out the user information they had.

 

You keep saying a court ordered demand has zero expectations. You're continually changing your argument and then saying you never said it. You're not following your own logic.

 

You agreeing to this is counter to your first line.

 

Well that's not true. They demanded everything Signal had, which they provided. They can't get mad at Signal for not having more information. There's nothing to charge them with.

 

Not really. the FBI demanded everything Signal had, which they provided. It was less than they hoped for, but not less than they expected.

[poochyena]

7 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

the FBI demanded everything Signal had, which they provided. It was less than they hoped for, but not less than they expected.

yes, thats the entire point. They expected to get what they had, but there was no expectation that they would have everything they asked for. They hoped to get everything they asked for, but there is no evidence to suggest that they expected Signal to provide the full list of information they asked for.

[JZStudios]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

yes, thats the entire point. They expected to get what they had, but there was no expectation that they would have everything they asked for. They hoped to get everything they asked for, but there is no evidence to suggest that they expected Signal to provide the full list of information they asked for.

So now you're back to arguing my initial point of "They expected something and hoped for more."

Glad we've come full circle. An agreement has been made, understanding has been reached. This pointless argument reaches it's conclusion, and now I'll have to find something else to fill my internet argument time with.

[poochyena]

40 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

So now you're back to arguing my initial point of "They expected something and hoped for more."

Glad we've come full circle. An agreement has been made, understanding has been reached. This pointless argument reaches it's conclusion, and now I'll have to find something else to fill my internet argument time with.

Thats great and all but the original comment was about saying the FBI expected signal to hand over "bank/card info, transaction history, job info, tax id number, utility bills, driver/photo id, and a bunch of other stuff", which is a lot more than saying the fbi expected signal to comply with the order to hand over whatever they had.

[williamcll]

You know how with the germanwings(?) crash they could never get a psychological profile of the pilot due to privacy laws in  germany.

[JZStudios]

15 hours ago, poochyena said:

Thats great and all but the original comment was about saying the FBI expected signal to hand over "bank/card info, transaction history, job info, tax id number, utility bills, driver/photo id, and a bunch of other stuff", which is a lot more than saying the fbi expected signal to comply with the order to hand over whatever they had.

The original comment, not the subpoena.