zlacker

[return to "Signal app downloads spike as US protesters seek message encryption"]
1. AnonC+ul[view] [source] 2020-06-05 06:17:12
>>pera+(OP)
The biggest drawback with Signal for protesters is that it exposes the user's phone number to everyone else in groups (just like WhatsApp does). There is no way to even hide the fact that you have an account on Signal. I can add phone numbers by enumeration into my contacts and Signal will show who among my contacts is on it. If the authorities don't use tactics like they did in Hong Kong, the protesters may be safe from being spied on (or worse).
◧◩
2. hjek+7m[view] [source] 2020-06-05 06:25:10
>>AnonC+ul
Signal is not only used by protesters[0][1] so discovering that a phone number is connected to a Signal account by no means implies that the phone is used by a protester.

[0]: https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2020/01/23/deploye...

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/17/tories-swit...

◧◩◪
3. m12k+wn[view] [source] 2020-06-05 06:39:30
>>hjek+7m
Yeah, if you're ever asked why you're on Signal, just say you wanted to stay in touch with a programmer friend who's not on Facebook/WhatsApp, and they suggested Signal (that is now literally true as well - I suggest you try Signal, friend)
◧◩◪◨
4. jrochk+5T[view] [source] 2020-06-05 12:22:37
>>m12k+wn
If the law enforcement is talking to you in the U.S., the only right answer is "I'd prefer to have a laywer here."

Not a joke, for real.

They are experts at getting you to talk to them even if you know this. They are experts at getting you to say things that incriminate you or your friends -- that you or your friends have done nothing wrong (in your opinion/as far as you know) will not protect you.

The only answers you should be rehearsing or thinking of in advance are "I would like a lawyer" and "I would like to remain silent." They are rehearsing how to get you to say incriminating things, a lot. Rehearsing or thinking up any other answers only plays into their strengths. Even knowing this, I've been tricked into talking to them, to my detriment. They are really good at it.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. vincen+TV[view] [source] 2020-06-05 12:45:21
>>jrochk+5T
I’ve heard this before but here’s my practical problem: I don’t know any lawyers. I have literally no idea who to call in such a situation. Do I have to go find and retain a lawyer beforehand just in case I might need one later?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Loughl+d41[view] [source] 2020-06-05 13:38:18
>>vincen+TV
It's not a bad idea to have a relationship with a lawyer. Talk to family/friends/co-workers. Somebody will have a name for you.

We made a relationship with one I found through family via estate planning (not his specialty) and land deals (not his specialty).

Now I have a name to say out loud when I interact with police. This has happened twice. The OP is right, they'll do everything they can to get you to talk, but understand that if a police officer is talking to you, they're digging for information to incriminate you. In my case, I was a witness to something, and they cuffed me and made me sit on the curb. No possible way I could've needed to be cuffed and questioned. And that was the approach my lawyer took when he came. Best $100 I ever spent.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. mehrda+9n1[view] [source] 2020-06-05 15:18:48
>>Loughl+d41
> but understand that if a police officer is talking to you, they're digging for information to incriminate you

Are you sure you're not exaggerating? I've totally seen incidents where cops were only talking to see if they've even found the right person. They lose interest pretty damn quickly when they realize they're talking to the wrong person (even to the point of rejecting extra evidence you might offer yourself). Whereas I'm pretty damn sure in these cases you cause yourself a lot of (short-term maybe, but still) grief if you suddenly go on the defensive and plead the 5th. It unnecessarily makes you look guilty, whereas a couple minutes of talking can make it crystal clear to them you're totally clueless.

[go to top]