426
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
426 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
58737 readers
4059 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year 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?
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.