Read the Affidavit produced here:
https://signal.org/bigbrother/santaclara/
Read Signal's complete source code here:
https://github.com/signalapp
Once you understand the code, you'll understand "what they can do" and what they cannot do.
When you've identified any flaw in the code that runs the Signal servers that would allow IP logging, let me know. I'll be glad to file the bug report on your behalf.
Signal knows *when* a user wqs last connected, but not the IP address of that connection. The system has been specifically designed to minimise the meta data available for collection.
To do the things you are suggesting that Signal could be forced to do, Signal would have to rewrite its entire codebase as well as the client apps.
Fortunately, Signal is open source, and such changes would be noticed.
As it stands, it doesn't matter what is demanded nor by whom as the only user data, including traffic analysis, that Signal can currently reveal is insignificant.
Signal simply cannot disclose data it itself cannot access.
Yes, decentralised services are preferable, but Signal has probably the easiest onboarding experience for the average user, especially those new to the concept of E2EE.
Nope and I was wrong.
@signalapp is only able to produce LESS information than I previously stated.
That's it. Nothing else.
Signal does NOT log users' IP addresses.
See this for more information:
https://signal.org/bigbrother/santaclara/
There is NO back-door to Signal.
@signalapp is blind to all communications. (Including, probably, this toot! 🤪)
Signal itself does NOT know who has messaged whom, nor when, nor how (e.g. the IP address is NOT known.)
If Signal was subpoenaed to produce my records, they could produce:
I'm *fairly* sure that is all of it.
(Please let me know if I'm wrong.)
Ditto.
[at]gurnu[at]lemmy.world has been on my own 'blocked' list for a while.
An oxygen thirf who's worth nobody's time...
The government will LOVE this scheme...
Then, in 10 years' time...
7. Spend a fortune on an advertising campaign trying to get people back on 'traditional' bicycles.
Oh, increasing the dingo population (by any method) would, as you say, definitely impact the roo population. No question!
But the *location* of that roo population matters and affects whether any cull makes economic sense.
I was a spotter and offsider for a few pro roo shooters over a few seasons.
Culling roos usually only makes sense when it benefits the farmer AND value can be extracted from the roos.
Most culls I've seen were in cattle country that was still 'close to town', usually within 1-2 hrs' drive. (I'm sure that culls also occur down in sheep country, too.)
Primary producers rarely look upon dingos favourably, and there'd be little support for increasing them.
The 'predator-prey' 'boom/bust' cycles are still common, but generally where the station's size is measured in 1000's of sq. kms. In the 'back of beyond', diesel alone costs much more than can be made from any culled roos.
Edit: check out the dingo fence...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo/_Fence
Kangaroo populations will naturally go through "boom and bust" cycles as the amount of available feed and water varies tremendously. (Aussies often forget that this is the world's driest continent.)
Mass deaths within local kangaroo populations will always occur due to drought. That's nature, and it's a bad way to die
Having 'extra' dingos manage the 'roo population' would mean they'd suffer a similar fate, just delayed by a few months, if that.
When the 'roo population fell to low numbers, the dingos would turn on whatever is available... including, as you say, livestock.
It's a complex problem, and there are no easy answers.
However, which is worse? Letting 'roos die horrible mass deaths from inevitable droughts, or controlling their numbers via managed culls, and then tapping into that resource? Most, but not all, kangaroos that are culled will die an instant death.
In fact, for those of us who eat meat, we should avoid beef, lamb, and pork. Kangaroo is FAR more sustainable from an environmental perspective...
... even if Skippy is on our National Coat of Arms.
@sunzu2
"Under FISA order, signal would provide logs."
How would Signal do this? Logs of what?
Corresponding parties? Messages? They don't have them.
They'd have to rewrite their backend code to obtain them, and changes would also need to be made to the Signal client apps.
It would not matter if the FISA Court ordered that logs be produced in secret by Signal. Any such logs could not be obtained without significant changes to the way Signal works. Users would know.
Yes, Signal does have some shortcomings, but these are acceptable in most 'use cases' for most threat models.
Signal is best used as a private, E2EE alternative to SMS. Only a fool would use it for the *most sensitive* of communications. (Like, you know, discussing an impending military strike...)
We all know of the alternatives, including (but not limited to) SimpleX, Session, Briar, Element etc.
@maniacalmanicmania @9tr6gyp3 @signalapp