457
Discord says piracy subpoena would violate users’ First Amendment rights
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
457 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
72686 readers
1641 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If they did not collect any information, they would not have any information to give when they are served a subpoena.
How else would they store and sync the information?
Encrypt it end to end with them not having the keys
They do have to retrieve old messages when new users join though. I’m sure the government can force them to lett them in a server and unlock the roles
Keep the data but encrypted. Let users send links that contain the pki info to decrypt the messages. Have that pki info generated client side.
Discord would only need to shuffle data, provide authentication, and provide the web app data down to the client. But every bit of user shared and generated content would be encrypted to them.
Like I said, Discord can still be compelled to let feds join the server, thus receiving the PKIs.
If the the pki is generated by users client side by a secret discord doesn't control it wouldn't be an issue.
Either you share the message history to new users (which includes feds) or you don't have any history. I don't understand what you mean
The server provides the data to authenticated users and helps facilitate pki between the clients.
If someone is added by the server to have access to the data but wasn't given a key capable of decryption by an actual user they wouldn't have actual access, just encrypted data.
Sync from another online user. If each message is signed by the author, there's a built-in protection against tampering.
It's really not hard, they just have to care enough to build it that way.
Can't feds also sync them from other users?
Sure, if they're granted access to the channel. But that access would come from users of the channel, not the service itself, and if the service doesn't store the keys (i.e. you need at least one user online to get access), the service can't really help the feds.
And whether to provide access to history for new users can absolutely be a setting on the channel. I'm just saying that having the messages only on the clients doesn't preclude sharing those messages with a newcomer.