So you read the title and you know everything.
There is a liste of what they are accusing and their is no mention of internet

The elements of the investigation that have been communicated to us are staggering. Here are just some of the practices that are being misused as evidence of terrorist behavior6:

– the use of applications such as Signal, WhatsApp, Wire, Silence or ProtonMail to encrypt communications ;

– using Internet privacy tools such as VPN, Tor or Tails7 ;

– protecting ourselves against the exploitation of our personal data by GAFAM via services such as /e/OS, LineageOS, F-Droid ;

– encrypting digital media;

– organizing and participating in digital hygiene training sessions;

– simple possession of technical documentation.

But continue to invent reality. What are fact if not debatable point of view ?
That the end for me.
Have a great day.

Yes, the guardian app allows you to send encrypted messages through their app to their journalists. 100,000 people check the news, one person is whistleblowing. That one person's messaging traffic is mixed in with the regular news data, so it's not possible to tell which of those 100,000 people are the source. Signal messages travel through their servers, so anyone inspecting packets can see who is sending messages through signal, just not what the messages contain. Thats a big red arrow pointing to only people sending encrypted messages. With this implementation, those people are mixed in with everyone else just reading news or even just having the app on their device.

Packet data has headers that can identify where it's coming from and where it's going to

Wouldn't you have to have some sort of MITM to be able to inspect that traffic?

This is also why something like Tor manages to circumvent packet sniffing

TOR is what their already-existing tip tool uses.

Would you? Are the headers encrypted?

Packet data has headers that can identify where it's coming from and where it's going to

Wouldn't you have to have some sort of MITM to be able to inspect that traffic?

This is also why something like Tor manages to circumvent packet sniffing

TOR is what their already-existing tip tool uses.

Does it matter? How would you get access to such information?

If the header isn't encrypted it'd be easy to inspect, and thus easy to determine where it goes, which is why it matters.

Based on your questions, it sounds like you're expecting the network traffic itself to be encrypted, as if there were a VPN. Does signal offer such a feature? My understanding is that the messages themselves are encrypted, but the traffic isn't, but I could be wrong.

If the header isn't encrypted it'd be easy to inspect

Easy for whom? How are you getting access to the traffic info?

You're talking about encryption and signal because you're worried about folks whose network you're connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

I'd say it's a pretty reasonable suggestion to say we start with those guys. If you don't worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

You're talking about encryption and signal because you're worried about folks whose network you're connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

LOL no? I'd never blow the whistle on my employer from my desk. Even if I did, I would connect to a different network.

I recognize other people are not as conscious as I am of that vulnerability but you asked about me, specifically.

If you don't worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

Any number of other people. Primarily the government.

No they can't.

E: if someone wants to provide evidence to the contrary instead of just downvoting and moving on, please, go ahead.

100,000 people check the news, one person is whistleblowing.

There are many many more people using Signal to yell at their kids to do the dishes or some shit. Not whistleblowing.

Thats a big red arrow pointing to only people sending encrypted messages.

Everyone is using encrypted messages...

Academic paper: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-999.pdf

I don't know everything. Just because it's not explicitly listed today doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow. This was just created yesterday. And it does the same thing that all of those listed apps do: facilitates private communication.

Academic paper: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-999.pdf

Technical summary: it seems OK against an observer who can see the network traffic but hasn't infiltrated the phone of the source or the computer of the news organization.

Any real message is stored locally on the smartphone by the CoverDrop module and sent as the next CoverDrop message, i.e. replacing the dummy message which would otherwise have been sent. Consequently a network observer cannot determine whether any communication is taking place and CoverDrop therefore provides the potential source with plausible deniability.

The CoverNode and each journalist has their own public-private key pair. These keys are published by the news organization and available to the CoverDrop module directly so the user does not need know about them. When the CoverDrop module is used for the first time, it generates a new, random public-private key pair
for the user.

All real CoverDrop messages sent by the CoverDrop module to the CoverNode include the text written by the potential source as well as their own public key. The message is first encrypted using the public key of the journalist who will ultimately receive the message, then encrypted a second time using the public key of the CoverNode. All dummy CoverDrop messages are encrypted using the public key of the CoverNode. All messages, real or dummy, are arranged to be the same, fixed length. Encryption and length constraints ensure that only the CoverNode can distinguish between real and dummy messages.

Yeah but contrary to these listed, the judge know the guardian is a newspaper, they shouldn't be able to make him/her afraid in the same way they did.

Yeah but contrary to these listed, the judge know the guardian is a newspaper

The logic does not check out. Signal isn't going to integrate a news section and then suddenly be exempt from this regulation.

It show you didn't read, I am explaining the article piece by piece. They used the lost a gave you to convince a judge it was a terrorist behavior. It is not forbidden to crypt things. And they would not have been able to convince a judge the news application guardian is a terrorist tool.
And I am bad a English so I am trying to resume a English article to you in broken English. I am sure I use the wrong word and as long as you don't read you can keep playing me. You are taking more time debating things I have an hard time explain than reading the article.
Do you wan me to copy paste in entirely here so you can avoid one click ?

Except that signal is blocked by many companies Mobile Device Management. The one that don’t can typically see who has the app installed. This provides a new clever way to maybe whistleblow