>"I actually believe that law enforcement has the legal right to subpoena information, with a judge's consent, while investigating criminal activity. This is exactly the solution to that _problem_."
Absolutely. The other side of that coin is that people are not required to keep (or in this case, even gather) information in a way that allows the government to obtain it.
I'd also point out that this isn't about information that could prove a crime. It's about the government demanding information from a third party about unknown persons and the contents of their personal effects.
Given that Signal doesn't collect or have access to such information[0]:
"...this subpoena requested a wide variety of information we don’t have, including the target’s name, address, correspondence, contacts, groups, calls."
It's not possible to provide it. Are you claiming that Signal should be required to gather such information solely for the benefit of the police?
As the Fourth Amendment[1] to the US Constitution says, in part:
"...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
And since the subpoena was asking for Signal to identify the subject (their name), such a demand is clearly outside the bounds of the Fourth Amendment.
I'll say it again: Whether a judge (in this case, it was a grand jury and not a judge, but why split hairs?) agrees or not, Signal can't provide information it does not possess.
I suppose a law could be passed requiring them to collect such information as was demanded, but it's hard to see how that would be defensible on any grounds.
Absolutely. The other side of that coin is that people are not required to keep (or in this case, even gather) information in a way that allows the government to obtain it.
I'd also point out that this isn't about information that could prove a crime. It's about the government demanding information from a third party about unknown persons and the contents of their personal effects.
Given that Signal doesn't collect or have access to such information[0]:
"...this subpoena requested a wide variety of information we don’t have, including the target’s name, address, correspondence, contacts, groups, calls."
It's not possible to provide it. Are you claiming that Signal should be required to gather such information solely for the benefit of the police?
As the Fourth Amendment[1] to the US Constitution says, in part:
"...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
And since the subpoena was asking for Signal to identify the subject (their name), such a demand is clearly outside the bounds of the Fourth Amendment.
I'll say it again: Whether a judge (in this case, it was a grand jury and not a judge, but why split hairs?) agrees or not, Signal can't provide information it does not possess.
I suppose a law could be passed requiring them to collect such information as was demanded, but it's hard to see how that would be defensible on any grounds.
[0] https://signal.org/bigbrother/cd-california-grand-jury/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...