147
FTC says Amazon executives destroyed potential evidence by using apps like Signal
(www.theverge.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2024
147 points (97.4% liked)
Technology
1320 readers
265 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So are they using these trials in their crusade against encryption and having articles like this in hopes of turning the public against it? Because it looks like it to me.
Then a few paragraphs later they reveal Bezos has been an encryption fan and user of the service for 5+ years while trying to get others to use it... I get it, Amazon is doing shady shit, but this feels to me like the government is trying to get encryption frowned upon.
When the government says to start preserving records, you start preserving records.
There is no need to pretend this is some government posture over secure messaging. This literally about the lack of saving those messages. How they were sent is irrelevant as long as a copy can be provided.
I see.
I somehow misconstrued this line into thinking they had been using it for those 15 months and were then notified they weren't supposed to. I screwed up there.
That is missing from every headline, and sub headline on this story wherever it is submitted.
Thank you for pointing it out .
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.