Student arrested after sending private joke over snapchat before boarding a plane, message was viewed by security as he was connected to public Wi-Fi

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Whilst thats true, if it was one of the friends, given the context i'd expect the spanish authorities to at least be considering charges against them. Since their not i suspect they probably don't. MI5/MI6 may not share info publicly, but i imagine they and the spanish authorities have communicated. And the judges comments seem to indicate he believes the claim.

Which of the claims do you believe the judge believed?

 

Specifically they tried to recoup the cost by charging him with public disorder, but that in itself needs to show intent that you knew the action would have consequences...bet that it will be likely that some laws will change to reflect behavior like this to be charged with the expenses.

 

If you are referring to him believing the "public wifi" argument/interception argument; there wasn't a defense put towards refuting that claim it seems (only witnesses from the friends, but no authorities saying where they gathered the information from)...so the judge has to accept that statement that it might have been intercepted.

 

Although the judges statements do stand in contradiction though. (maybe it's my 3 hours of sleep brain)

Quote

On the contrary they were shared in a strictly private environment, between the accused and the friends he was flying with to which only they had access.

But then another statement

Quote

The accused could not even remotely assume (as he expressly stated at the trial), that the joke he played on his friends could be intercepted or detected by the British services, nor by third parties outside of his friends who received the message.

Those statements show that there is a bit of contradiction, as the first statement assumes no access but by the friends, but the bottom implies there might be a chance of interception that occurred.

 

In general though, I think the most plausible explanation is a friend reported it out of concern, or just falsely reported it...but if it was a false report then I would have assumed they would have pursued chargers against that person.

 

Actually generally there didn't seem much cooperation from the British authorities, because the prosecutor wasn't able to prove a friend ratted on them...instead having the guys friend on the stand and the guys friend saying that none of them would share that text...I do think it might have been different if the prosecutor could have shown it was a friend who went to the authorities though [as then the pillar of defense that the defense used of it being a case of not knowing it would be intercepted would be gone]

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, CarlBar said:

My experiance is that a random report usually gets mentioned in the press as having come into the police regardless of who handles it. Though since it was passed to a foreign nation maybe it would get reported differently.

I don't think authorities would just out an informant without a good reason and they'd know quite early on they would not be winning this case in court. They wouldn't have anything to gain or make their case stronger by outing anyone because as the judge outlined the person making the joke is the one that has to be under the reasonable assumption of audience and outcomes, something I do actually agree with. It just doesn't at all change my earlier comments about what to say and when.

 

Counter terrorism agencies just simply don't talk about how and where they get their information from unless they have to or it is beneficial to them to do so.

 

It doesn't change the fact that WiFi interception is not the situation here, it's just not possible. Even if some 3 letter agency got hold of the encrypted data traffic, why would they have it, they weren't going to decrypt it in the timeline of events. Do you know how long it takes to break modern encryption.

 

The only plausible situation here is that someone with access to the message reported it and that is:

1. Anyone in the private chat
2. Snapchat

Quote

No - text and group messages are not end-to-end encrypted (E2EE). These messages are not fully protected and can most likely be accessed by Snapchat staff

 

[mr moose]

Public nuisance my arse,  given both the authorities that be and the social media companies go out of their way to make you believe all your messages are private, how on earth could anyone insinuate and random user would know his "private message" was being read?

 

Even if he was dobbed in by a recipient, to prove guilt of any nature they have to prove he knew it would reported.    But given the way today's legal systems work I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't found guilty of something.   I mean,  it's really hard to save face once you have publicly announced your intentions when they are wrong.

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

given both the authorities that be and the social media companies go out of their way to make you believe all your messages are private, how on earth could anyone insinuate and random user would know his "private message" was being read?

Social media companies do that...but the authorities for the longest time have been fighting for their "right" to snoop on messages for "security purposes".

 

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

Even if he was dobbed in by a recipient, to prove guilt of any nature they have to prove he knew it would reported.    But given the way today's legal systems work I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't found guilty of something.   I mean,  it's really hard to save face once you have publicly announced your intentions when they are wrong.

I think to an extent they would just need to show that a "reasonable" person would realize the actions of their words...which given that the prosecutor didn't provide evidence of who reported it, their case pretty much fell flat...actually it backfired because the person they put on the stand said that none of them would have shared it (and since the prosecution didn't get information from the British except that there was a bomb threat their case really couldn't go anywhere).

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

I don't think authorities would just out an informant without a good reason

Some of the forms as well are anonymous as well [at least here, not sure in Britain], so they might not have had even an ID (because at that stage they could make an emergency request to Snapchat to look at the message to verify the "threat") and they wouldn't know the informant.

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

They wouldn't have anything to gain or make their case stronger by outing anyone because as the judge outlined the person making the joke is the one that has to be under the reasonable assumption of audience and outcomes, something I do actually agree with

I do think that it could make a difference in this case though as there is evidence that one of his friends who knew him took the threat seriously; so the justification that it was all private and amongst those who thought it was a joke would no longer hold...but as there wasn't any evidence presented that showed the contrary the witnesses statement holds the value that it was "private".

 

After a bit of thinking on the subject though, I speculate that the British Government wouldn't want to help with this case anyways.  While it would send a message not to joke around while enter a plane, admitting your sources pretty much shows they are willing to throw informants under the bus.  Staying silent on it allows them to maintain a better chance people will come forward in the future to rat on their friends (By letting them believe their fantasy that it was the public wifi)

[SpaceGhostC2C]

(Un)surprisingly, the person with the least criminal behavior in the story is the one that ended up in jail...

 

On 1/24/2024 at 12:09 PM, Tegneren said:

Making threats of, or encouraging violence or terrorist acts is not covered by free speech. 

The police can't read the persons mind to know if its a joke or not

 

You simply can't threaten an airport by sending a private message to your friends. You need to at least, you know, involve the supposedly threatened person...

Sending a text message that reads "Fire!" to your friend inside a theatre is not a crime; shouting it out loud is.

 

On 1/24/2024 at 3:46 PM, Needfuldoer said:

Don't joke about performing terrorist acts.

Or about god. Or sex. Or the government. You enjoy the absolute freedom to say what we want you to say and joke about what we want you to joke about; don't misuse it.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 1/25/2024 at 4:46 AM, leadeater said:

Make the joke, just do it at the right time and place 

He did it at the right place - he did it in private (or what he thought was in private). The problem wasn't caused by his joke, the problem was caused by being spied on.

 

It's just another case of mass surveillance producing more expenses to burden the taxpayers and zero actual threats stopped.

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

He did it at the right place - he did it in private (or what he thought was in private). The problem wasn't caused by his joke, the problem was caused by being spied on.

 

It's just another case of mass surveillance producing more expenses to burden the taxpayers and zero actual threats stopped.

Situational awareness is really lost on the youth, and airport is not a time to joke about that kind of thing; even amongst friends.

 

You are assuming it's a case of mass surveillance though; where as the prosecution in this case tried arguing that the person who told was a friend (just that they didn't really prove it because they didn't have the evidence they needed and the witness essentially denied it).

 

A general issue as well, true threats that are stopped can sometimes not be publicized because they either don't want to tip their hand or don't want to reveal how much they truly knew.  It's kind of the enigma, when it was cracked they used it in a way that would not arise suspicion. 

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

He did it at the right place - he did it in private (or what he thought was in private). The problem wasn't caused by his joke, the problem was caused by being spied on.

 

It's just another case of mass surveillance producing more expenses to burden the taxpayers and zero actual threats stopped.

Nope he didn't do it in the right place, in an airport, or at the right time, boarding an airplane.

 

That's 2 massive strikes 

 

P.S. If we are going to ignore the physical world I'll just go back to pointing out one of his "friends" has a solid chance of being the source of this report and just isn't saying so/denying it. Literally the least likely scenario here is mass surveillance.

 

Yet another case of people blaming big scary "mass surveillance" when it's inordinately unlikely to be involved at all. Seems I have to keep saying this, it was either a friend or Snapchat, not [agency name here].

 

And just to make it really clear, Snapchat Group Chat is not private. Anything you say online is not private, it does not matter what any services says or claims, it is not private. Utilizing a service you have no control over automatically makes it not private since you have no idea and no way to verify if it is all the time always.

 

This person did not make a joke in private, they made it on the internet on a service they had no control over.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I do think that it could make a difference in this case though as there is evidence that one of his friends who knew him took the threat seriously; so the justification that it was all private and amongst those who thought it was a joke would no longer hold

Yes it would still hold, the person making the joke still had reasonable grounds to not expect the outcome. The fact a friend didn't take it the way the person making the joke intended/expected does not actually change that.

 

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

admitting your sources pretty much shows they are willing to throw informants under the bus.

Yep exactly my point, nothing to gain and only to lose. Would not have helped this case at all, The judge's comments just make that so clear.

 

Quote

Gary Kasparov: “No intention to provoke the mobilisation of a military plane, or any police or other emergency service is apparent.”

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Nope he didn't do it in the right place, in an airport, or at the right time, boarding an airplane.

(...)

P.S. If we are going to ignore the physical world I'll just go back to pointing out one of his "friends"

AFAIK he did not actually say anything, so everything tool place in a private, virtual space, which couldn't cause a threat or an alarm to the airport/airline. Hence, it's the claim that "he did it at an airport" that requires ignoring the physical world.

He may have actually alarmed one of his friends if that's the source, which I haven't seen any evidence of yet.

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yet another case of people blaming big scary "mass surveillance" when it's inordinately unlikely to be involved at all. Seems I have to keep saying this, it was either a friend or Snapchat, not [agency name here].

Snapchat would be mass surveillance in that case. We know since Snowden, if not earlier, that private companies' cooperation is part of the surveillance web.

 

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

And just to make it really clear, Snapchat Group Chat is not private. Anything you say online is not private, it does not matter what any services says or claims, it is not private. Utilizing a service you have no control over automatically makes it not private since you have no idea and no way to verify if it is all the time always.

That is true; however, that is not necessarily how their users see it or how the companies promote those services (hence the qualifier "what he thought was in private" in my post).

 

[CarlBar]

@leadeater What source? This isn't someone inside a terrorist cell or who knows a potentiol terrorist as a family member who made a mistake but might have genuine information in future. A source is only valuable enough to protect if you think it might be useful in future.

 

@wanderingfool2 The judge seems to have accepted the long standing joke explanation. And yes it may have been anonymous. That hasn't stopped the british justice system from going after people for fake reports, it just takes more effort to track them down. The friends have all come out and stated that they knew it was a joke so if one of them was responsible they've incriminated themselves and i'd expect the british justice system to g after them. The lack of movement on that makes me think it's very unlikely to be one of them and is probably some other source.

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

The judge seems to have accepted the long standing joke explanation. And yes it may have been anonymous. That hasn't stopped the british justice system from going after people for fake reports, it just takes more effort to track them down. The friends have all come out and stated that they knew it was a joke so if one of them was responsible they've incriminated themselves and i'd expect the british justice system to g after them. The lack of movement on that makes me think it's very unlikely to be one of them and is probably some other source.

The question isn't about whether or not he intended it as a joke, but whether there should have been some reasonable insight that what he said could cause panic.

 

e.g. If he's made jokes in the past and one of his friends shows hesitancy towards it, and that friend reported him then it could be argued that the consequences could be known to him.

 

Overall though, the British Justice System wouldn't go after the reportee unless they knew the report itself was made to joke.  The reason being it was a valid threat, like it or not.

 

The friends all saying they knew it was a joke doesn't mean they told the truth (and while it might be the reporting, it sounded like they didn't actually interview all the people in the group).  Put yourself in the situation of a friend who thought it might be real, would you come forward and admit it after the fact?  Knowing that admitting it likely means you lose your entire friend group, ostracize you from the groups he hangs around and that your friend will get in trouble.

 

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

What source? This isn't someone inside a terrorist cell or who knows a potentiol terrorist as a family member who made a mistake but might have genuine information in future. A source is only valuable enough to protect if you think it might be useful in future.

It's the general concept of "protecting the informant".  e.g. If you were a journalist and had confidential informants come to you and you provided information on an informant that commited a crime, do you think you will be getting more informants in the future?

 

It's a similar thing to witness protection, if the witnesses in other cases keep dying there is no way most people would want to volunteer being a witness.

 

You don't protect this informant because you think he will have more stuff to say in the future, you protect the informant so that people don't worry about ratting on people...because they know the government will keep that information safe (unless really needed)

2 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

AFAIK he did not actually say anything, so everything tool place in a private, virtual space, which couldn't cause a threat or an alarm to the airport/airline. Hence, it's the claim that "he did it at an airport" that requires ignoring the physical world.

He may have actually alarmed one of his friends if that's the source, which I haven't seen any evidence of yet.

First, he was using his phone in a public area and sending it to people who are also are in a public area.

Second, the public area is an area where bombings do happen

Third, being in a public area anyone walking by him could have seen that message.  Anyone walking by anyone from the group at the airline could have seen that message.

 

It's like saying, because students passing notes in class privately was in a private setting then they shouldn't get in trouble if they were joking about a school shooting and a lockdown occurred.

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

@leadeater What source? This isn't someone inside a terrorist cell or who knows a potentiol terrorist as a family member who made a mistake but might have genuine information in future. A source is only valuable enough to protect if you think it might be useful in future.

 

A source is anyone i.e. a person filing a report from seeing this message which could be any one of the friends in the private chat. There is no reason for any British agency including police to divulge that to Spanish authorities even if they ask.

 

There is no reason to torpedo a friendship group when there is literally nothing for British Security Services to gain from that.

 

23 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Put yourself in the situation of a friend who thought it might be real, would you come forward and admit it after the fact?  Knowing that admitting it likely means you lose your entire friend group, ostracize you from the groups he hangs around and that your friend will get in trouble.

Bingo

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Snapchat would be mass surveillance in that case. We know since Snowden, if not earlier, that private companies' cooperation is part of the surveillance web.

No that would not be mass surveillance. That's like calling LTT Form Moderation mass surveillance. Just because Snapchat has a huge user base of consistent daily users doesn't mean their own security monitoring gets shoved under the  "mass surveillance" umbrella.

 

Those who don't like legitimate security and public protection methods tend to throw around scary words way to easily for actually no good reason.

 

If you don't like that Snapchat could be seeing what you say you can either not use Snapchat or not say stupid things that might get you in trouble. Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok etc only have as much power and information as we give them, civil responsibility is your own. Choosing to do and say dumb things falls at the feet of one's self, nobody else.

 

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

He may have actually alarmed one of his friends if that's the source, which I haven't seen any evidence of yet.

Cool, then what evidence is there that WiFi interception or Security Services tools actually picked up this group chat message?

 

I have already verifiably proved that WiFi interception by Airport network operations is impossible so that's out. Next we have interception by an external entity not Snapchat. Ok how? What evidence is there this actually happened? So this entity was so easily able to decrypted secure transport layer communication in such a short time frame? Finally we have Snapchat who could have message monitoring for key words and phrases, I'd say they do. So this was picked up by Snapchat, processed and reported very timely? Somehow with all the volume of crap that goes through Snapchat this was noticed so quickly and actioned? Plausible? Yes

 

So we are left with two actually Plausible scenarios, of what I would say roughly equal likelihood. Friend in the chat reported it, Snapchat reported it.

 

Snapchat in my opinion has a moral and ethical responsibility to not let communication that is a risk to public safety to happen. You are entirely free to disagree but I have zero time for allowing things like terror planning to happen on communication services, tough nuts if that involves some amount of privacy compromise on those services, don't like don't use.

 

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

AFAIK he did not actually say anything, so everything tool place in a private, virtual space, which couldn't cause a threat or an alarm to the airport/airline. Hence, it's the claim that "he did it at an airport" that requires ignoring the physical world.

He may have actually alarmed one of his friends if that's the source, which I haven't seen any evidence of yet.

Text is "speech". The written word is one of the most powerful things we have in this world.

 

I'm sorry but not considering that he is/was physically in an airport or was going to be is literally ignoring the physical world. Joking about blowing up a plane on Snapchat at home in your bed is actually different to doing it in the airport. That is the difference between immediate actionable threat and it not being one, if the joke is not seen as a joke or is at a level which cannot be ignored even if it might be.

 

I entirely agree it was a joke and should have been interpreted as a joke. I agree there is and should be no legal grounds for punishment. I agree that those responsible to public safety have to do something about it if notified regardless how likely it is to be a joke given the mitigating situation circumstances.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Social media companies do that...but the authorities for the longest time have been fighting for their "right" to snoop on messages for "security purposes".

I don't recall the last time the fbi, airport security, mi5 or whoever actively told us they were constantly listening, the best they ever argue is for the ability for specific targets only.   Your government is in control go back to sleep sorta thing.

 

11 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I think to an extent they would just need to show that a "reasonable" person would realize the actions of their words...which given that the prosecutor didn't provide evidence of who reported it, their case pretty much fell flat...actually it backfired because the person they put on the stand said that none of them would have shared it (and since the prosecution didn't get information from the British except that there was a bomb threat their case really couldn't go anywhere).

Any reasonable person would expect a private message to stay private and that the recipients knew it was a long running joke.

 

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

Any reasonable person would expect a private message to stay private and that the recipients knew it was a long running joke.

Really though?  How many times do you have secrets come out from friend groups that was supposed to be "just between us" etc.

 

There actually are people in my friend group who I know if I were to send a message like that as a joke they would as though it wasn't a joke (because hyperbole situational awareness is beyond their comprehension).  As an example, someone joked about small pox, and she actually believed they had somehow contracted it.  It's actually the same person that my friend group also jokes about that "if you want a secret to be known, tell her and everyone that both you and her know will know the secret within a few days".

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I don't recall the last time the fbi, airport security, mi5 or whoever actively told us they were constantly listening, the best they ever argue is for the ability for specific targets only.   Your government is in control go back to sleep sorta thing.

They don't actively say they are monitoring people, but they don't do what you said that they tell people all messages are secure (that's the social media companies that do that part).

 

Like all the times the governments around the world push for things like legislative back doors for encryption so they can still perform what amounts to wiretaps...even the concept that we have wiretaps in our everyday vernacular.

 

While they don't promote that they do active surveillance and try intercepting data (harder for them once Snowden's report came out and companies like Google started encryption between data servers even in their datacenter); they most certainly don't go about telling people it's secure.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Really though?  How many times do you have secrets come out from friend groups that was supposed to be "just between us" etc.

They do come out, but not immediately which is what you'd have to expect if you were to pursue the idea that he was reasonably informed that he was breaking a law.  And again it is not the expectation that said joke would be made public.

 

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There actually are people in my friend group who I know if I were to send a message like that as a joke they would as though it wasn't a joke (because hyperbole situational awareness is beyond their comprehension).  As an example, someone joked about small pox, and she actually believed they had somehow contracted it.  It's actually the same person that my friend group also jokes about that "if you want a secret to be known, tell her and everyone that both you and her know will know the secret within a few days".

 

You are assuming that your friends who would do that have the same mindset as this guys friends.  All we know is he made a joke to friends, you can't prove he knew they would have likely reported him for it. 

 

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

They don't actively say they are monitoring people, but they don't do what you said that they tell people all messages are secure (that's the social media companies that do that part).

I didn;t claim they tell people that, I said they "go out of their way to have you believe"  They often talk about such access to be only for criminal activity leaving the general public with the view that "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear".  It's all about what is not said most of the time.

 

2 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Like all the times the governments around the world push for things like legislative back doors for encryption so they can still perform what amounts to wiretaps...even the concept that we have wiretaps in our everyday vernacular.

 

While they don't promote that they do active surveillance and try intercepting data (harder for them once Snowden's report came out and companies like Google started encryption between data servers even in their datacenter); they most certainly don't go about telling people it's secure.

And yet even in this thread amongst people who believe they are well informed there are two distinct opposing statements regarding whether snapchat is encrypted or not.  I don't even care whether it is or not, the point is if tech enthusiasts think it is then it is reasonable for a lay person to think that also.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

All we know is he made a joke to friends, you can't prove he knew they would have likely reported him for it. 

Is that what anyone is trying to prove? Not that I know of. All that is being said is a friend reporting the "joke" is definitely on the table of possibilities and actually possible unlike the news headline and the claim that it was because of public wifi.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

And yet even in this thread amongst people who believe they are well informed there are two distinct opposing statements regarding whether snapchat is encrypted or not.  I don't even care whether it is or not, the point is if tech enthusiasts think it is then it is reasonable for a lay person to think that also.

It is encrypted and Snapchat is protected from "wire tapping" thereby "security reading the message because he was on public wifi" is actually impossible.

 

We can wax lyrical about the difference between End to End  Encryption (E2EE) versus Encryption but the simple fact is here in this situation either of the two prevents "wiretapping" of Snapchat messages.

 

As it stands today Snapchat group messages are not E2EE so Snapchat and only Snapchat can read those messages outside of those included in the group chat, the communication from the Snapchat App to Snapchat and other Snapchat users is still encrypted.

[mr moose]

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

Is that what anyone is trying to prove? Not that I know of. All that is being said is a friend reporting the "joke" is definitely on the table of possibilities and actually possible unlike the news headline and the claim that it was because of public wifi.

 

Wanderingfool was arguing they only need to show it was reasonable to expect that his joke would lead to trouble.  My statement was in defense that if tech enthusiasts are divided over it being possible or not for snap to be spied on means you can't reasonable expect anyone to think it would definitely be.  Thus you have to essentially prove he thought his friends would dob him in in order to show he was reckless or not.

 

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

It is encrypted and Snapchat is protected from "wire tapping" thereby "security reading the message because he was on public wifi" is actually impossible.

 

We can wax lyrical about the difference between End to End  Encryption (E2EE) versus Encryption but the simple fact is here in this situation either of the two prevents "wiretapping" of Snapchat messages.

 

As it stands today Snapchat group messages are not E2EE so Snapchat and only Snapchat can read those messages outside of those included in the group chat, the communication from the Snapchat App to Snapchat and other Snapchat users is still encrypted.

As I said before, the discussion was questioning if it was reasonable to expect that such a message sent in the way it was to the people it was would lead to this.  Given this thread has posts both saying it is encrypted and that it isn't encrypted (debating if it's possible to accuse him of being irresponsible) proves that it is not reasonable to assume this guy had any belief that his message would lead to the outcome it did.   Because if anyone in this thread believes that snapchat is encrypted and thus his message was not intercepted then that by itself shows it is reasonable to assume this bloke believed his message would only be seen by friends and not cause any damages.  

[leadeater]

55 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Given this thread has posts both saying it is encrypted and that it isn't encrypted

People aren't saying it's not encrypted, people are talking about whether or not Snapchat can themselves read it, that being in transit or at rest (stored on Snapchat systems).

 

The only people that have made any noises about encryption not be used are the defendant (the student) and the media, because they are saying that the public Wifi could have been the cause of all this when it's in truth not. Not only is it not viable on a technical level the student themselves have already said they were not using the public Wifi which also lead to the statement of possibility that one of the private chat group members were, also not all that likely.

 

Most people use their mobile data connection not public wifi on phones, there is little reason to assume any of the other students weren't doing the same behavior of this student i.e. not using the public wifi.

 

Public wifi is simply not a factor in this story.

 

The posts you are referring to are again like I said around the very specific type of encryption implementations used, nobody here I have seen has said encryption is outright not used. So I must point out if someone is saying Snapchat can read the messages that is not saying encryption is not used.

 

Encryption is simply a side bar to whether or not it is reasonable to expect that a private chat group would only be seen by the members of it which I have always agreed that in general is a reasonable assumption to make even though I am saying that is flawed thinking. It's reasonable because it's called "private" and it's also reasonable because that's what most people think, it's also flawed thinking by everyone that happens to think in this way.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to say and point out people think in these ways and it is also perfectly reasonable to point out people need to be better educated and informed on these matters since it would avoid situations like this. If you want to make a crass joke about terror attacks while in an airport to people who are also in the airport maybe it is a better idea to do it in person rather than an online platform, even if I think that is still ill-advised. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

People aren't saying it's not encrypted, people are talking about whether or not Snapchat can themselves read it, that being in transit or at rest (stored on Snapchat systems).

 

 

On 1/25/2024 at 12:48 AM, Sauron said:

Text messages on snapchat are not encrypted:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/01/09/snapchat-adds-end-to-end-encryption-protect-users-messages/

 

 

On 1/25/2024 at 12:51 AM, callyozzie said:

 

Interesting, weird they dont e2e encrypt the message, but the media is. Still, would they not be encrypted with HTTPS?

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

The only people that have made any noises about encryption not be used are the defendant (the student) and the media, because they are saying that the public Wifi could have been the cause of all this when it's in truth not. Not only is it not viable on a technical level the student themselves have already said they were not using the public Wifi which also lead to the statement of possibility that one of the private chat group members were, also not all that likely.

It doesn't matter who said what about it in the media or courts etc.  I was showing why it is reasonable for someone to assume a message they send through snapchat to a closed group would remain private.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Most people use their mobile data connection not public wifi on phones, there is little reason to assume any of the other students weren't doing the same behavior of this student i.e. not using the public wifi.

 

Public wifi is simply not a factor in this story.

 

The posts you are referring to are again like I said around the very specific type of encryption implementations used, nobody here I have seen has said encryption is outright not used. So I must point out if someone is saying Snapchat can read the messages that is not saying encryption is not used.

 

Encryption is simply a side bar to whether or not it is reasonable to expect that a private chat group would only be seen by the members of it which I have always agreed that in general is a reasonable assumption to make even though I am saying that is flawed thinking. It's reasonable because it's called "private" and it's also reasonable because that's what most people think, it's also flawed thinking by everyone that happens to think in this way.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to say and point out people think in these ways and it is also perfectly reasonable to point out people need to be better educated and informed on these matters since it would avoid situations like this. If you want to make a crass joke about terror attacks while in an airport to people who are also in the airport maybe it is a better idea to do it in person rather than an online platform, even if I think that is still ill-advised. 

 

I think you are missing my point all together.  In reference to encryption I said quite clearly:

 

Quote

I don't even care whether it is or not, the point is if tech enthusiasts think it is then it is reasonable for a lay person to think that also.

 

 

 

The position I was defending was not a technical one, it was simply showing how it is unreasonable to assume someone of negligence when any other reasonable person would also have made the same assumptions.

 

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

this seems eerie similar to this video... which might shed some light on who did what...

 

 

edit: nah, it doesn't,  seems still to be the same case

[Mark Kaine]

On 1/27/2024 at 6:45 AM, mr moose said:

Any reasonable person would expect a private message to stay private and that the recipients knew it was a long running joke.

nah, that makes the person unreasonable by definition,  on the internet nothing is private, everyone knows this (should at least) and that this kind of "joke" likely triggers some automated detection systems should also be clear to anyone, which is why you don't make "jokes" like this especially *while actually boarding a real life plane*... but i guess this "reasonable" chap found out the hard way. 

[leadeater]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

It doesn't matter who said what about it in the media or courts etc.  I was showing why it is reasonable for someone to assume a message they send through snapchat to a closed group would remain private.

I understand that but like I said nobody has said encryption is not used, only that E2EE is not. That is the point and clarification I am making because you have actually said people here are saying encryption is not being used on the context of E2EE rather than outright zero encryption being used.

 

Most people don't know or have even heard of E2EE. Point is stop saying and using that as a point to back your position/point because here on this from it actually is important to not incorrectly state or imply encryption is not being used because people here do care and do understand so if you are saying encryption is not being used  then they are going to think "wiretapping" is possible when it's not which will just lead to another round of blaming and talking about the wrong thing.

 

People were already mislead in this topic from the start that "security services" could intercept this private chat when they absolutely cannot. The whole situation is worse because the person sending the message wasn't connected to public wifi at all yet look at the news report headline. Notice any false or misleading information there?

 

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

The position I was defending was not a technical one, it was simply showing how it is unreasonable to assume someone of negligence when any other reasonable person would also have made the same assumptions.

I know but you keep throwing in the technical point about things not being encrypted, there is no better point for you to make than "it was a private chat".

 

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you are missing my point all together

I'm not missing your point I just don't think you are understand the clarification I have been making and why. Your quotes at the top of your post are literally exactly what I have been saying. Look at the url link and look at what those two people are saying and talking about, E2EE vs Encryption aka the specific implementation of encryption. None of them have actually said Snapchat communication protocols are not encrypted "at all" aka clear text.

 

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

it was simply showing how it is unreasonable to assume someone of negligence when any other reasonable person would also have made the same assumptions.

I did not say it is negligence, I said that thinking is flawed. If people actually stopped and thought about it, "I am using a service I do not have control over and everything I do goes through their service while I use it" with a little common sense would figure out that this service likely can see everything. People just don't do this.

 

E2EE is the minority, this is not how "the internet operates". There are some services that offer or claim this implementation of encryption but I would put it to everyone that verifying this is not always possible or easy and there is no better operating rule than "the service owner can see it if they want to".

 

Which again for the record saying exactly what he did where he did etc even on a E2EE messaging service is still stupid. "Welcome to Australia, unlock your phone".... "you are under arrest".

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

"I am using a service I do not have control over and everything I do goes through their service while I use it" with a little common sense would figure out that this service likely can see everything

yep, thats why its called private message and not secret message lol.

 

even most basic forms of "social media" aka forums (no offense!) tell you that they can read private messages... for everyone living through early internet stages this is just common sense, but nowadays people don't know this stuff, they think everything is "encrypted" ... (sure is, except for the encrypter who can still read everything and bring it to the attention of authorities if need be)