Iirc from the last time this article or similar was posted, it’s about how warrants are issued. It’s the username versus phone number not username versus or and/or other data points. Anything more than that I am still unclear about.
They don’t track username history and don’t have a server side list of plaintext usernames, and others can’t find your phone number from the username alone. That makes it harder to confirm which account is yours.
The idea is that you change or remove your username after someone else starts a conversation with you, so the username can no longer be used to subpoena your account details.
Put another way, signal is able to provide those 2 pieces of information to law enforcement based on a phone number. This helps you to prevent law enforcement having a phone number to ask signal to look up in the first place, assuming you change your username every time you hand it out.
They also hash the usernames that they store on your account which means law enforcement can’t ask what usernames are being used, only being able to ask for specific usernames which are currently in use.
I understand that right now LEA can serve up a subpoena and give Signal a username and get a phone number, but they can’t give them a phone number and get a username.
Is it also possible for Signal to keep track of past usernames/associated hashes for a particular phone number?
(For comparison, Signal could record IP addresses, but we trust they don’t due to unsealed cases. Could they keep a username history?)
Yes it entirely depends on whether they store previously used usernames along with the date range it was in use (to tell apart multiple people who used the same username at different times)
We’ll have to see if any unsealed cases in the future support that they don’t keep those records like how they don’t keep IP logs, but personally their track record is enough for me to have confidence in the feature, especially since my “threat model” is primarily opportunistic hackers or spearphishers at most, not police or state / nation state level actors.
Probably because some people tend to pick user names that identify them in some way. Take me for example, I have a few names I go by but this username is definitely helpful in identifying me. I use it on the other place, a couple of emails, discord, telegram, etc. I don’t feel the need to be as anon as possible (no shade on those who do) so I main this one. I have a few others that I have been known to use and those are mainly for things that I don’t want easily connected back to me.
You shouldn’t be forced to be anonymous. If you want to pick the same username, you should be able to. But even so, there’s still a required number at the end. So unless your username elsewhere ends in 2 digits and isn’t already taken, then you can’t pick it anyway
It’s not about forcing anyone to be anonymous. I’m not OP here but I kind of agree. Maybe signal should default to a randomized one with a blurb about safety, anonymity, etc but let you create your own if you want.
Again. My personal view isn’t to force random usernames on people but to maybe educate them on this stuff. Also, there are legit reasons why you should have non identifying usernames even if it’s not how the world should work. There are enough nutters out there who may recognize something in someones name that links them to someone they know offline and people are nucking futz. I can tell you stories I’ve heard from my clients that you would believe but don’t want to.
Oh and for the numbers, that can be even more identifying because people tend to use numbers that mean something to them. I have a variation on this name that includes my birth year in 2 digits. If I was posting things online that close family might have a problem with, it wouldn’t be hard to do to the math and identify me that way.
guessing it would mean that people wont be using the same username as they do on every other account. So if doodlebop69 can’t be traced from signal they could go to google and find the same doodlebop69 to grab their information from
I mean I suppose there are a few ways you could read this.
One is that the NYT article was inaccurate - it wouldn't be the first time that fake news around this conflict has travelled halfway around the world before the truth has had its breakfast.
But another interpretation is that tight-knit communities don't want the full horror of the final moments of these girls and women to be so publicly exposed to the world. The article points out that the NYT article effectively identified the individuals and that can't have been a helpful experience for their surviving families and friends.
In the context of the coordinated attack by Hamas and others of 7 October, the UN mission team found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations in southern Israel.
The team also found a pattern of victims - mostly women - found fully or partially naked, bound and shot across multiple locations which “may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence”.
In some locations the mission said it could not verify reported incidents of rape.
Tell the IDF to stop faking rape claims then. They told us back in November they had mountains of forensic evidence and thousands of witnesses. And now they can’t find a single CCTV recording and they lost the forensic evidence? They can’t even find two “witnesses” which corroborate a story.
Until you find evidence it’s rather obvious these are nothing but lies to manufacture consent for the Genocide of Gaza.
A reserve warrant officer known by her first name, Avigayil, recounted finding maimed bodies, per Reuters. Multiple cases of rape were also discovered during forensic examinations.
The UN team did way more than that. It “conducted 33 meetings with Israeli representatives, examining more than 5,000 photographic images and 50 hours of video footage. It conducted 34 confidential interviews including with survivors and witnesses of the 7 October attacks, released hostages, first responders and others.”
Wrong, they “found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred in multiple locations, including rape and gang rape in at least three locations in southern Israel.”
Just repeating “Zaka” over and over won’t make evidence disappear, as much as you wish it would.
What evidence is there of Carroll’s rape besides an eyewitness account?
There are multiple eyewitness accounts of rape/murder on 10/7. Furthermore, released hostages gave firsthand accounts to the UN of rape while in captivity.
But you only accept eyewitness accounts when they fit your narrative. That’s why nobody should believe Hamas’ denials.
Based on the first-hand accounts of released hostages, the mission team received clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment occurred
No need, because the UN summarized it for me. Just as I believe there are 30,000 dead Gazans, even though I don’t have a list of names and proof they are dead.
No doubt you too believe there are 30,000 dead Gazans, based on someone else’s summary. Which as usual means you only believe facts that fit your narrative.
No you said firsthand witness what you just read wasn’t that. It was someone that said they “heard a rumor while in captivity.” They never witnessed it.
First hand accounts of rumors they heard. Not of rape which what you claimed.
Which in layman’s terms means “we spoke a hostage that said they heard someone say that there was rape but they never saw any rape nor were they sexually violated themselves”.
What evidence is there of Carroll’s rape besides an eyewitness account?
There are multiple eyewitness accounts of rape/murder on 10/7. Furthermore, released hostages gave firsthand accounts to the UN of rape while in captivity.
But you only accept eyewitness accounts when they fit your narrative. That’s why nobody should believe Hamas’ denials.
No released hostage has claimed to have witnesss any rape so far. Only heard stories. If I’m wrong you are welcome to link it to me so I can chance my mind
Your cognitive dissonance is so overwhelming that you can’t even accept that words have meanings.
You can spin imaginary tales if it helps you sleep. But everyone else who reads the UN report understands what they wrote. Those hostages saw rapes firsthand.
Long story short, there’s no new substantive evidence beyond what the NYT already said? And considering how badly the NYT fucked up with their recent poll, I’m even more inclined than before to doubt their story.
Thing is: There’s plenty Hamas & related groups did on Oct 7th to enrage a population - no exaggeration is necessary.
However, there ISN’T enough to justify a genocide … especially since Israelis have been torturing Palestinians for decades.
Israel needs to de-humanize the locals to the point where the population can justify an ethnic cleansing. Hence: Ridiculous accusations of using breasts as foot-balls and mass rape.
Can you read this article for me? There were a lot of people asking israel to collect forensic evidence of those rapes four months ago when (if any rapes happened) there would be evidence. Why did that not happen?
Are you asking me to guess? Rampant, patriarchal misogyny, same answer as always because very few countries do do their due diligence when prosecuting rape. But that’s speculation, which is what it sounds like you’re asking for.
You linked three articles. How can you even quote the second article if you only posted one?
Your BBC link says “hears witness”. No evidence was observed. Same shit as from the debunked NYT article.
You are not presenting anything new. In fact your links were from when the IDF still claimed they had forensic and video evidence. Something which we now know is a lie.
I remember the “mature adults” told me that I needed to learn journalism skills and critics reading when the NYT article full of holes came out and I said it looked super fake since there’s zero evidence and the witnesses were “anonymous”
They said that NYT is a premium newspaper and referenced Gettleman’s Pullitzer prize a lot. Thus you need to believe anything they say.
Then my posts from The Grayzone fully debunking it got removed cause MBFC gives them a bad rating.
Where you guys at. Admit I was right. I was down at - 9999 downvotes back then with an army of “mature adults” trying to gaslight me into supporting israel’s Genocide.
Is the NYT ever gonna publish an explanation of this mess, or do they get away with just having redacted the article to include “may”. Because “may” only ever meant “may or may not”.
I have been a subscriber for long, but that ends till they do a mea culpa.
If you are talking about Miral Abdush, even her own family claimed that she was not raped.
There is no forensic evidence of her being raped.
That photo was a woman with her skirt being flipped up.
Unless you have cool new intel which no other journalist has in which case please link it or send it to me in a DM.
Here’s some fun reading material:
Family of “the girl in the black dress” accuses NYT of having “invented” rape claim
You write, “Based largely on the video evidence — which was verified by The New York Times — Israeli police officials said they believed that [Gal] Abdush was raped, and she has become a symbol of the horrors visited upon Israeli women and girls during the Oct. 7 attacks.”
However, the sister of Gal Abdush, Miral Alter, stated in a January 2 Instagram comment that “she was not raped… There was no proof that there was rape, it was only a video.” She also pointed out that the timeline between Gal’s last message to the family and the time of her reported murder made it impossible for a rape to occur: “How in 4 minutes [were] they also raped and burned [?]”
Alter concluded, “the New York Times that came to us indicated that they wanted to do a story in memory of Gal and Nagy [her husband] and that’s why we approved. If we knew that it was a headline like rape slaughter, we would never agree. Never.”
Is Alter’s statement accusing you of misleading her family true? And why have you ignored her comments bluntly stating that her sister had not been raped? Did you and Alter ever discuss your theory that Abdush was the victim of a sexual assault?
Gal Abdush’s brother-in-law has also spoken out against the claims contained in your article. In a January 4 interview with Israel’s Channel 13, Nissim Abdush denied that Gal had been raped, insisting that it would have been impossible given her husband was present with her at the time. “The media invented it,” he stated. Nissim Abdush also accused the international press – presumably referring to you – of resorting to sensationalism in place of evidence-based journalism. Finally, he lamented that the false claims of his sister-in-law’s rape were harmful to the psychological health of her orphaned children.
Once again, why have you failed to incorporate statements by a family member of Gal Abdush explicitly contradicting key claims in your article?
Eti Bracha, the mother of Gal Abdush, told Israel’s YNet she was first told that her daughter had been raped when she was contacted by you. “We didn’t know about the rape at first, we only knew when the New York Times reporter contacted us. They said they cross-examined the evidence and said that Gal had been sexually assaulted. Until now we don’t know what exactly happened,” added the mother.
Is it normal journalistic protocol to influence a family’s perspective of a loved one’s killing, when the crime remains unsolved? How did the New York Times obtain evidence which the Bracha-Abdush family had not yet seen? And what evidence existed beyond the video mentioned in your article?
There are more issues with your reporting on the killing of Gal Abdush. You claim that a video of Abdush filmed on October 8 by someone named Eden Wessely “went viral, with thousands of people responding, desperate to know if the woman in the black dress [was] their missing friend, sister or daughter.”
However, as the independent outlet Mondoweiss pointed out, you “did not link to the video but released a distant, indistinct image from it that revealed nothing.” Mondoweiss questions how you “confirmed the existence of these responses since Wessely’s Instagram account has been banned, and she created a new account in mid-December.”
Further, as Mondoweiss noted, “There is currently no trace of the video on the internet despite the [NY Times] claim that it ‘went viral.’ Moreover, the Israeli press, despite reporting on hundreds of stories about the October 7 victims, never mentioned ‘the woman in the black dress’ even once previous to the December 28 story.”
So where is the video that you claimed “went viral”? If it contained such powerful evidence of sexual violence, why was it not featured in your article? And how did you confirm the thousands of responses to the video by people supposedly demanding information about “the woman in the black dress”?
Her own family was not there. They saw the same photos as everyone else. They are in pain and it is understandable if they don’t want to believe she was raped, but I can draw my own conclusions.
Then explain why the IDF found no forensic evidence of her being raped. Or anyone else being raped.
A non-burned body would surely contain evidence.
The rape story is incredibly stupid to begin with. Rape only happens after combat is over. Even the hostages that were release all said they were not raped.
You can’t observe anything, because you don’t want to look and you don’t want to listen. Even when freed captives report sexual abuse. You’ve already made up your mind.
As for Israel, they are also responsible for atrocities. Both sides in this conflict are filled with a deep hatred that brings out the worst in humanity.
The same party that lied about rapes on Oct7, and are actual rapists are your credible source?
If only the IDF allowed interviews with the released hostages. But they don’t since the first interviews with released hostages all said they were treated well which is bad optics when the IDF is the side actually doing the raping.
And again no forensic evidence this time from women that are alive… 🤔
Who’s that he was not in the article. New IDF recruit?
The “witness” in the article changed his story like 3 times until he saw beheaded women which provably didn’t exist. And at the moment he was supposedly seeing the rape he was talking rad selfies.
Oh yeah and his friend which was there right next to him did not corroborate the story.
Just so many rapes and zero evidence ever collected. Really sad and coincidental you’d almost think the IDF was lying to manufacture consent for Genocide. The IDF would never lie right?
Zero evidence if you ignore eyewitness evidence. I guess you think basically nobody should ever be found guilty of rape.
Furthermore, the first witness did not contradict his story. In the TikTok video he describes Hamas murders, and in the later interview he describes the same Hamas murders and goes on to describe the rapes. Those accounts are consistent.
The second witness described Hamas rapes to the AP as well as in his video.
Of course since they are Israeli, they must have served in the IDF. It’s compulsory. So if you don’t believe anyone who served in the IDF that’s equivalent to not believing Jews, a pretty typical attitude for Hamas defenders.
Shari Mendes, an architect serving in the IDF reserves in a rabbinical unit, was deployed to a morgue to prepare bodies for burial after the attacks. An American originally from New Jersey, Mendes did multiple TV and print interviews about her experiences. “We have seen women who have been raped, from the age of children through to the elderly,” she told reporters, emphasizing, “This is not just something we saw on the internet, we saw these bodies with our own eyes.”
For months, Mendes has served as one of the most visible witnesses bolstering Israel’s allegations of systematic rape. But few media outlets featuring her claims have mentioned the valid concerns about her credibility and her history of promoting a false story. She told the Daily Mail last October, “A baby was cut out of a pregnant woman and beheaded and then the mother was beheaded.”
On December 5, as Israel engaged in a global media push around its allegations that Hamas had committed mass rapes, Mendes was a featured speaker at an event in New York organized by Israel’s mission to the U.N. on sexual violence and the October 7 attacks. The Times of Israel reported that Mendes “is not legally qualified to determine rape.”
This article doesn’t seriously question whether rapes occurred, even acknowledging “Sexual violence is common in warfare”. It just says that rape wasn’t part of an organized campaign, and for all I know it may be right.
The fact that Israel has not produced forensic evidence for individual rapes does not prove that no such deeds took place. … But there is a difference between making specific allegations of rape or sexual assault and charging that organized mass rape was a central component of an operation meticulously planned over the course of years. Israel’s evidence of the latter comes nowhere near to measuring up to its claims.
It debunks many of the rape cases by pointing out there is either evidence contradicting them, or by showing that the “witnesses” already have a reputation for lying. since they were the people that claimed they saw 40 beheaded babies and women cut open. Which did not happen according to the IDF themselves.
For another list of massive inconsistencies there is also this article.
Because Ron Fregle was not even mentioned as a witness in the Screams without Words article. In fact when searching his name only irrelevant stuff comes up. Is he in any article or is it just that video?
After a million “witnesses” being exposed for making false statements you can’t seriously expect me to take these 'eyewitnesses" seriously anymore.
There are a lot of CCTV cameras in israel an somehow none of them manages to capture any rape? And there’s no forensic evidence? And all of the witnesses bring stories filled with holes or straight up lies?
Again, the article does not claim that no rapes occurred:
The question has never been whether individual acts of sexual assault may have occurred on October 7. Rape is not uncommon in war
It argues that the NYT violated its editorial standards, which is an entirely different question.
It also tries to cast doubt on Cohen’s eyewitness account, but I find it unpersuasive. First it points out that Cohen said “The terrorists, people from Gaza, raped girls” but only described one incident. Big deal. This was not a deposition. People often generalize, especially about shocking things. People say things like “Putin kills his political opponents” and “Trump rapes women” even if they only know about Navalny and Carroll.
It also points out that Cohen’s companion saw a woman stabbed whereas Cohen saw a woman raped and stabbed. Again, unpersuasive. They weren’t shooting a documentary, they were hiding. It’s entirely possible they saw different parts of an event, or even different women. If you read eyewitness accounts of the Parkland shooting you will find that not everyone mentions the exact same details, but that certainly doesn’t mean they are liars.
This is true. Which is why the Palestinians women that were raped by the IDF were actually raped by the IDF.
The problem is that after so many false israeli “eyewitnesses” it’s rather difficult to take one of them who was not even involved in the huge false investigation by NYT where they turned over every rock to find made up rape fanfics seriously.
You describe a 24-year-old accountant identified as “Sapir” as “one of the Israeli police’s key witnesses.”
Yet one of Sapir’s key claims undermines the rest of her testimony. According to the Times, “she saw three other women raped and terrorists carrying the severed heads of three more women.”
Given that no record exists of women being beheaded on October 7, why did you include this claim from Sapir? Does such an assertion not undermine her credibility and raise doubts about the rest of her testimony? And why, at minimum, did you not mention that there is no forensic evidence to support Sapir’s claim?
Testimony by supposed paramedic debunked by official records, previous record of lying to media
You write, “A paramedic in an Israeli commando unit said that he had found the bodies of two teenage girls in a room in Be’eri. One was lying on her side, he said, boxer shorts ripped, bruises by her groin. The other was sprawled on the floor face down, he said, pajama pants pulled to her knees, bottom exposed, semen smeared on her back.”
You report that the paramedic conveniently “kept moving and did not document the scene.” However, “neighbors of the two girls killed — who were sisters, 13 and 16 — said their bodies had been found alone, separated from the rest of their family.”
That paramedic appears to be the same source CNN relied on in its own special report accusing Hamas of a systematic and deliberate campaign of rape on October 7. He is a supposed paramedic from Israeli Air Force Special Tactics rescue unit 669 identified only as “G.” And like your other sources, he has proven to be an unreliable, if not deeply dishonest, witness.
Times’ “rescuer” source has established pattern of lying, embellishment; works for group with documented history of sexual abuse, corruption
You prominently feature testimony by Yossi Landau, Southern Commander of the ZAKA organization. For critical background on Landau and his organization, we refer you to Max Blumenthal’s December 6 investigation for The Grayzone, “Scandal-stained Israeli ‘rescue’ group fuels October 7 fabrications.”
Were you aware, as The Grayzone documented, that Landau’s previous claims of having seen beheaded babies and a fetus cut from a dead woman’s womb on October 7 have been discredited not only by the Israeli newspaper by Haaretz, but by the Biden White House, which retracted the president’s claim that he had seen photographs of beheaded babies? In fact, only one baby is recorded among those killed on October 7, which means any claim to have seen multiple dead babies must be dismissed out of hand.
No women were beheaded on Oct7. Only two men were mutilated. Which means Sapir’s claims were false. The amount of heads is also impossible as three is more than two.
I have clicked on your link but it’s just footage of some people talking
Zaka volunteers have become ubiquitous in media reports about the attacks of October 7. They have been quoted by Reuters, CNN, New York Times, BBC, The Guardian, NBC News, Politico, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and many other outlets — with few, if any, mentions of past scandals or present controversies.
Keller-Lynn and Landes maintain a close friendship. Together they produced two podcast series: One, Us among the Israelis covered media messaging by the Israeli government and military, among other topics.
Petition to ban every single article from these propaganda outlets when they post accusations against Palestinians. They clearly do not have any journalistic integrity.
Suchman and Myers West both pointed to OpenAI’s close partnership with Microsoft, a major defense contractor, which has invested $13 billion in the LLM maker to date and resells the company’s software tools.
That explains it. Microsoft wants to cash in on their massive investment in OpenAI by embedding ChatGPT into every bit of software they can. Defense being an important sector for them, I’m surprised the military ban was ever in OpenAI’s usage policy.
Stupid question, why would they need to? Couldn’t they license the models under a ToS that is totally different from the public one? Isn’t the public ToS just for Joe Schmoes off the street?
theintercept.com
Newest