Encrypted Chat App 'Session' Leaves Australia After Visit From Police
- Reference: 0175301601
- News link: https://it.slashdot.org/story/24/10/22/142225/encrypted-chat-app-session-leaves-australia-after-visit-from-police
- Source link:
> Now Session will be maintained by an entity in Switzerland. The move signals the increasing pressure on maintainers of encrypted messaging apps, both when it comes to governments seeking more data on app users, as well as targeting messaging app companies themselves, like the [2]arrest of Telegram's CEO in August . "Ultimately, we were given the choice between remaining in Australia or relocating to a more privacy-friendly jurisdiction, such as Switzerland. For the project to continue, it could not be centred in Australia," Alex Linton, president of the newly formed Session Technology Foundation (STF) which will publish the Session app, told 404 Media in a statement. The app will still function in Australia, Linton added. Linton said that last year the Australian Federal Police (AFP) visited a Session employee at their home in the country. "There was no warrant used or meeting organised, they just went into their apartment complex and knocked on their front door," Linton said.
>
> The AFP asked about the Session app and company, and the employee's history on the project, Linton added. The officers also asked about an ongoing investigation related to a specific Session user, he added. Linton showed 404 Media an email sent by Session's legal representatives to the AFP which reflected that series of events. Part of Session's frustration around the incident came from the AFP deciding to "visit an employee at home rather than arranging a meeting through our proper (publicly available) channels," Linton said.
[1] https://www.404media.co/encrypted-chat-app-session-leaves-australia-after-visit-from-police-2/
[2] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/08/24/2253249/telegram-ceo-arested-in-france
It always starts like this... (Score:3, Interesting)
"We" (cops, spies, regulators, tax collectors etc) need to eliminate your privacy bc [ fill reason here]. And in the end it's used against regular folks not sex traffickers, smugglers or spies. Look at America's FBI.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to know if someone sides with tyranny and not liberty, start asking them how much power in government is too much. They most likely do not have a definitive answer, but their "There Ought to be a Law" tendencies will come out.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a law. The 10th Amendment comes to mind.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a stupid question, defying any clear answer for anyone who is not an absolutist. You say "It's never too much", you say "it's always too much" or you have to address an infinite number of hypothetical governments and situations. some percentage of people higher than 99% would agree that the government should have some power. Anyone with an elementary grasp of civics understands why a government needs a monopoly on violence. The rest is a very convoluted scale based on personal values and experience.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot "for the children". That's seems to be a common refrain to justify any/all curtailing of individual rights/freedoms
Re: fuck 404 media (Score:2)
Rubbish.
Wait (Score:2)
Regardless of Australia's horrific record on free speech, if I'm reading the story correctly all police did was knock on the door and engage in a voluntary communication with an employee on the subject of how the app works?
That doesn't sound like anything even in the ballpark of what happened to Durov.
Considering reputation of Australian police and legal system on matters of personal freedom, that was actually refreshingly nice of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Go to some employee's house and ask questions about the app? That sounds like intimidation tactics... They did the same here when some people sent out tweets critical of a new refugee center. Some of those people got a visit from the cops even though they didn't do anything remotely illegal: "We just want to have a chat about those tweets, maybe think twice before sending stuff like that?". People experienced those visits as rather intimidating.
If they really wanted information about the workings of
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm reading the story correctly all police did was knock on the door and engage in a voluntary communication with an employee on the subject of how the app works?
Did you miss the part where they asked about a specific Session user? It is right there in the summary. That was an investigation and the police should have asked the company directly and maybe with a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
> all police did was knock on the door and engage in a voluntary communication
Sending armed police to someone's home is not the way to have a friendly conversation.
If they had no intention of intimidating, why not just make a phone call?
Re: (Score:2)
And they were entirely out of line to do so.
If the cops had any real and legitimate need for the company's data, they could and SHOULD have told their story to a judge to have a proper subpoena issued to the company. That subpeona could then have been reviewed by Session's lawyers. And, when shown to be hinky, said subpoena could be contested and squashed when it turned out to be an illegitimate case of overreach... which we know it would have been, because the police decided to bypass due process and ski
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, some local cop took down the addresses of people who had Harris/Walz campaign signs at their houses and then paid them a polite visit.
Clear intimidation.
Even a polite visit from the police sends a strong message.
Re: (Score:1)
Suppose a gang sends a couple thugs over to your house toting weapons to "have a friendly chat". Feeling safe yet?
Perhaps a Feint (Score:2)
If Session were broken they wouldn't need to get a warrant, they could just steal the data.
Yet this "visit" sure seems like a way to maximize attention.
"Oh, they totally needed to intimidate an employee to get info on a user!"
Moving the company to Switzerland might be a smart move regardless but this whole scenario seems a little too on the nose.
Be careful out there. There's more than one way to lull people into a false sense of security.
Switzerland? (Score:1)
Are they really any better? I mean, American jurisdiction extends around the world (since World War 2). I see no way out of this without anonymous development and a "swarm" of servers, VPNs, etc. to make them play whack-a-mole indefinitely. We need our bulletproof internet.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're that soft-skinned, browse at +0 or higher comment score.