Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Privacy

Secret Documents Show Which Message Apps Are the Most FBI-Proof

WhatsApp and iMessage are not as private as you might think.

Andrea O'Sullivan | 12.7.2021 8:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
FBITech_1161x653 | Oleg Kachura / Dreamstime.com
(Oleg Kachura / Dreamstime.com)

Most message apps tout their privacy features in some way. It is common to hear marketing language about "end-to-end encryption" and "private messaging" for basically every communications app out there.

While it's great that encryption has become a selling point for the public, not every "encrypted messaging service" is made equally. Depending on how it is set up, your message app may leak metadata, contacts, and even message contents.

A recently uncovered FBI document obtained by a group called Property of the People and shared with Rolling Stone illustrates just how important your choice of private messenger can be. If you think popular options like Apple's iMessage and the Meta company formerly known as Facebook's WhatsApp are FBI-proof, think again. The nation's top cops can obtain a host of message information on many popular options including some mix of "subscriber data, message sender-receiver data, device backup, IP address, encryption keys, date/time information, registration time data, and user contacts."

The document, put out a day after the brouhaha of January 6, describes methods that the FBI can legally use (as of November 2020) to procure evidence in the course of a criminal investigation. This is not a "warrantless wiretapping" kind of scenario, although these tools could of course be used in improper ways.

Nine popular messaging applications are included in the document: Apple's iMessage; Line, a Japanese message app; Signal, an open source encrypted chat platform popularized by Edward Snowden; Telegram, which originated in Russia and is now based in Dubai; Threema, a paid encryption chat (that I used to use) with servers based in Switzerland; Viber, which was developed in Cyprus and then bought by the Japanese conglomerate Rakuten; the Chinese Swiss army knife app WeChat; Meta's WhatsApp; and Wickr [Me], which is a chat service that Amazon Web Services apparently owns.

The bottom line: of the most popular apps, iMessage and WhatsApp are particularly susceptible to FBI snooping. Telegram and Signal score far better according to the FBI documents. (Line and Viber are also relatively bad picks, and my formerly favored Threema likewise fares more poorly than I'd have expected, but since they aren't as popular this probably isn't relevant for you.)

Here's what the FBI can get from iMessage, in the order listed by the document: basic subscriber information, device backup (!), message sender-receiver data, contacts, date and time information, registration time data, and encryption keys. In other words, the whole list.

(I made sure to list these items in the order presented by the document. The ordering for each app does not match the ordering of the key at the bottom. This could be by rank of "strength" or effectiveness, or it could be totally random. Either way, worth noting.)

The "device backup" bit is an eye-catcher both for how it cuts against popular perception of platform security as well as the breadth of data it could possibly unlock. No other messaging app is listed as giving such access to the FBI. This is because iMessage is unique in that it is part of the iPhone ecosystem—the others are not tied to a particular OS.

Here is the problem: if your iPhone automatically backs up iMessage data on iCloud, which is the default, the FBI can obtain communications in a roundabout way by asking Apple to decrypt the backup on iCloud. To Apple's credit, it did try to allow users to enjoy fully encrypted backups with no company key that could decrypt data for any third party in iCloud. However, the company had to abandon plans when the FBI objected. If you're worried about this kind of thing, you can turn off iMessage backup on iCloud, and in fact you should probably look more into what data is stored in iCloud in general.

Actually, if you are an iPhone owner that uses WhatsApp, you should probably check your iCloud settings for that app as well. The document notes that "if target is using an iPhone and iCloud backups (sic) enabled, iCloud returns may contain WhatsApp data to include message content."

In addition to that asterisk on WhatsApp, the FBI can obtain, in the order listed: subscriber data, registration time data, message sender-receiver data, user contacts, and data and time information. What's unique about WhatsApp is that it can get information to the FBI within only a few minutes; Rolling Stone describes it as "practically real time." According to the document, WhatsApp can provide metadata every 15 minutes in response to what is called a "pen register," or way to trace things like who is talking to whom, when, and for how long. WhatsApp can't crack the encryption on the content of messages, but it can tell the feds that suspect A was talking to suspect B every day for several months, or whatever the case may be. That can reveal a lot in the course of an investigation.

Now to the encryption winners. It's no surprise that Signal fared well against favored FBI methods. It's open source, independent (albeit with some surprising partnerships), and touted by public personalities with privacy-focused bonafides. Still, I would have expected the FBI to have access to more metadata than they apparently do. Way to go, Signal.

Telegram especially surprised me for scoring so well. End-to-end encryption is not the default for most Telegram communications. You need to select a "secret chat" with an individual to get the full-bodied protection that the FBI document seems to indicate. Groups chats, which is the method preferred of many Telegram users, do not offer the same level of end-to-end encryption. Neither the FBI document nor the Rolling Stone article makes mention of this.

Weirdly, Rolling Stone does not mention Telegram at all, despite being the apparently most FBI-proof application all around and much more popular than Wickr, which does get a nod. The FBI document does note that Telegram may choose to divulge IP addresses and phone numbers for "confirmed terrorist investigations," but it cites Telegram's public policy rather than any secret backchannel.

The timing of this document is likewise interesting and unmentioned. January 6 might seem like ancient history now, but at the time, people were earnestly taking to the airwaves and intoning that the incident was "worse than 9/11." We all know how secret surveillance was ratcheted up and normalized in the wake of that event. We also know that the FBI has been enthusiastic in hunting down people in and around the Capitol in that second most horrible attack. They've used biometric scanning, phone tracing, and good old-fashioned snitching to reel in targets. Might this report have been in the pipeline anyway? Or might this have been a quickly put together primer for all the new hands that were suddenly on deck? It would be useful either way.

Telegram has emerged as a popular choice for people who might be described as right-wing extremists in some quarters. Just check out this search query: headlines screaming about how Telegram has become a haven for hate and misinformation. But things that go viral on Telegram are not private messages that are fully encrypted and inaccessible. They're "broadcasts" and group chats that not protected in the same way. It's strange that these dimensions were not even mentioned in some of the coverage of the uncovered FBI document.

Whatever the case may be, it's good that users of these applications have more of a look into some of the privacy pitfalls in the apps they use. Hopefully, people can make better informed decisions about the applications that they trust, or even seek out other encrypted communications tools that are arguably better on privacy protections, such as Session or the Matrix protocol.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Vaping Regulation Threatens a Lifesaving Smoking Alternative

Andrea O'Sullivan is the Director of the Center for Technology and Innovation at the James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, Fla. Her work focuses on emerging technologies, cryptocurrency, surveillance, and the open internet.

PrivacyFBIEncryptionCybersecurityAppsCellphones
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (81)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Chumby   3 years ago

    Russia does not allow using Line (unless via a VPN). Many there use Telegram.

    The anarchy group I lurk is on Telegram.

    1. Maria Gilstrap   3 years ago

      If you were Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours BTh per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis. Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…

      Start Today Click Here...........Pays/-24

      1. Phyllis R. Jones   3 years ago

        My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out. This is what do,…………… Visit Here

        1. Bernadette Lesperance   3 years ago

          Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

          Try it, you won’t regret it........VISIT HERE

  2. R Mac   3 years ago

    Signal for me.

    What kind of bitter breakup did Andrea have with Threema?

    1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

      Same here. A lot of defense contractors use Signal, too.

      1. Beatriz Rowe   3 years ago

        My pay at least $300/day. My co-worker says me! I’m really amazed because you really help people to have ideas how to earn money. Thank you for your ideas and I hope that you’ll achieve more and receive more blessings.ggh I admire your Website I hope you will notice me & I hope I can also win your paypal giveaway.

        Visit Now ..............Extreme-Earning

      2. JoeB   3 years ago

        A few years ago I heard that Signal was originally designed by CIA/NSA. Maybe I read it on a Reason thread. Can't remember, too busy thinking what a little hottie Jennifer Sanasie is.

    2. Andrea   3 years ago

      Haha, I just like that Element/Matrix is open source and you can run your own server.

  3. Sometimes a Great Notion   3 years ago

    Is this what the FBI wants you to think?

    1. Andrea   3 years ago

      That's a good question.

    2. mad.casual   3 years ago

      The FBI? I noticed WeChat was mentioned exactly once in the article.

      1. Granite   3 years ago

        Well, it’s Chinese so they don’t want to step on toes. They’ve got a good thing going right now.

  4. Kivlor   3 years ago

    Remember a decade ago, when it came out that the FBI has access to everything on Apple? FBI agent had all of the user data, including credit cards and SSNs of millions of people on his laptop... Why would you think iMessage is private/protected after that?

    Or did Reason not cover that event? I can't remember.

  5. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    Nothing transmitted by radio is really secure.
    Science.

    1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

      But some things are far more secure than others. You can choose to make your communications more secure rather than far less so. You just can't do it without exercising your freedom of choice.

    2. daveca   3 years ago

      radio is irrelevant. Encryption is.

      They have to give the keys to the Feds...therefore this is mostly mindless chatter.

      1. perlhaqr   3 years ago

        Which "they"?

        I haven't given my keys to the FBI. And Signal doesn't have them. So what makes this mindless?

  6. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

    The FBI is becoming like the KGB of old. Disgraceful.

    1. Chumby   3 years ago

      Comrade, please repeat louder and speak directly into my lapel pin.

    2. mad.casual   3 years ago

      The FBI has far surpassed the KGB of old.

      1. yet another dave   3 years ago

        Lol the kgb of old could only dream we'd be carrying a tracking device with all of our personal info on it, and paying for the privilage...

        1. CE   3 years ago

          and maintaining our own online dossiers, with known associates, whereabouts, political opinions, hobbies, reading material, etc., complete with timelines.

          1. daveca   3 years ago

            not me. Im not stupid enough to put personal info on a Government Monitored Tracking Collar.

      2. some guy   3 years ago

        Has the FBI started using the $5 wrench decryption method yet?

  7. JesseAz   3 years ago

    These articles are fine. But they seem to be just placating libertarian ideals when you ignore shit like the warrants the House is executing under the guise of J6 investigations.

    Multiple subpoenas have now been issued for people not even at the Capitol. Gop fundraisers and organizers. Subpeonas asking for all phone records, banking records, and even personal journals.

    How the fuck can you claim to be pro privacy abd just ignore the majority party actively requesting records from opposing parties?

    1. Griffin3   3 years ago

      These articles are fine. But they seem to be just placating libertarian ideals ...

      No one can scream at the clouds 24/7.

      1. Granite   3 years ago

        Fuck you

    2. Andrea   3 years ago

      Hi Jesse. I did mention the expansive January 6 investigations.

    3. Kivlor   3 years ago

      Jesse, to be sure, that is an unfortunate set of circumstances. But writing articles denouncing this will not further the editors' aims of floating in certain social circles, and might even result in not being invited to cocktail parties with the people you would have them denounce. We're doing the best we can.

      Sincerely,

      KMW /s

      1. Mike Laursen   3 years ago

        These cocktail parties the Reason DC staff allegedly aspire to attend only exist in the fantasies of right-wing commenters here.

        1. mad.casual   3 years ago

          No shit.

          You mean you've attended one of these imaginary cocktail parties and can confirm they are, indeed, imaginary?

          I guess we'll have to give up the fantasy of envisioning them aspiring to the vapid scum and villainy of a random cocktail party and instead envision them aspiring to the vapid scum and villainy of covering for their connections' sexual assaults or race-baiting hoax.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Journalists don’t go to parties, duh.

    4. Chumby   3 years ago

      Jesse, I have an idea.

  8. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

    "Now to the encryption winners. It's no surprise that Signal fared well against favored FBI methods. It's open source, independent (albeit with some surprising partnerships), and touted by public personalities with privacy-focused bonafides. Still, I would have expected the FBI to have access to more metadata than they apparently do. Way to go, Signal."

    Signal doesn't have access to the encryption keys--that's handled locally. Your communications aren't on their server. When feds have compelled whatever data Signal has on a user in the past, all they've been able to supply is the date the account was created and the last date the account was accessed. Even that information was only available because the feds could identify the user (who may not have put a password on his phone). Most of the time, Signal has no idea who is communicating with whom on its app.

    It should also be noted that Signal has a desktop app that can encrypt all the same text messages, voice calls, and video conferencing that its phone app can. The desktop version used to be a little clunky, but it isn't anymore. The phone interface for text, voice, and video is as clean and easy to use as any messaging app. It's easy enough for elderly people to use, and when you authorize it to take over your messaging, it automatically imports your existing contacts--Yes, you can take your contacts with you.

    You probably owe it to your friends, family, and business associates to get them on Signal--and it isn't just the Feds that have no business skimming through your conversations. You're probably doing your friends, family, and business associates a favor by making fun of them for using services by Amazon or Meta for privacy. Turning to Amazon and Meta for privacy is the fox guarding the henhouse.

    1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

      P.S. People who want the government to solve their privacy problems for them--while they refuse to use free services that effectively protect their privacy--are not advocating libertarian solutions.

    2. daveca   3 years ago

      all irrelevant. None in the US are able to be used unless the Feds have the encryption keys.

      Youre just blowing smoke....

      1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

        Your unwillingness to alter your beliefs if they conflict with facts that contradict them doesn't speak well of you. Facts are things that don't change depending on our opinions. Your beliefs are supposed to change when they conflict with the facts.

        "In October 2018, Signal Messenger announced that they had implemented a "sealed sender" feature into Signal, which reduces the amount of metadata that the Signal servers have access to by concealing the sender's identifier.[23][24] The sender's identity is conveyed to the recipient in each message, but is encrypted with a key that the server does not have.[24] This is done automatically if the sender is in the recipient's contacts or has access to their Signal Profile"

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol#Metadata

        It's been this way for years.

      2. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

        Here's Signal telling the U.S. Attorney's Office that they can't comply with a subpoena for a user's name, address, and the content of the messages--because they don't have any of those things.

        The legal request to Signal came from the US Attorney’s Office in the Central District in California in the form of a federal grand jury subpoena. According to the subpoena, investigators sought “all subscriber information” belonging to what appeared to be six Signal users. The requested information included “user’s name, address, and date and time of account creation,” the date and time that the users downloaded Signal and when they last accessed Signal, along with the content of the messages sent and received by the accounts, described in the request as “all correspondence with users associated with the above phone numbers.”

        Signal responded to the subpoena with help from lawyers from American Civil Liberties Union. According to the company’s response, Signal could only comply with two categories of information requested by the US Attorney’s Office.

        “The only information Signal maintains that is responsive to the subpoena’s inquiries about particular user accounts is the time of account creation and the time of the account’s last connection to Signal servers,” wrote ACLU attorneys Brett Kauffman and Jennifer Granick. Kauffman and Granick also addressed some of the US Attorney’s Office’s questions about the physical locations of Signal’s servers and whether the technical processes of account creation and communication for Signal users in California ever leave the state of California itself.

        In a blog published this week, Signal said why it again could not comply with a subpoena for user information, explaining that, because of the app’s design, such user information never reaches their hands.

        ----Malware Bytes Blog, April 30, 2021

        https://blog.malwarebytes.com/privacy-2/2021/04/signal-app-insists-its-so-private-it-cant-provide-subpoenaed-call-data/

      3. perlhaqr   3 years ago

        What the fuck are you even babbling about?

        Seriously, this is just false. It is precisely the opposite of true.

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      Your communications aren't on their server.

      How is that possible? They have to act as a proxy service because not everyone is reachable in real time at the moment the information is sent. That means that if my phone is off, your message is waiting for me on their servers for delivery.

      Signal may not retain that message once delivered, but none of these services are doing point-to-point, real time communication.

      1. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

        I think the point is that they don't have access to the encryption keys.

        "The sender's identity is conveyed to the recipient in each message, but is encrypted with a key that the server does not have.[24] This is done automatically if the sender is in the recipient's contacts"

        ----Ibidem

        1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

          Right, which is as it should be. Thanks for the clarification.

      2. Ken Shultz   3 years ago

        P.S. There is no good reason to think your communications are or can be 100% secure.

        There is good reason to think that your communications via Signal are as secure and convenient as they can be for now.

        And it isn't just secure from the FBI. Brian Acton (one of the founders of WhatsApp) left Facebook in disgust because of how Facebook wanted to monetize users' messages. He sunk tens of millions into Signal after he resigned. What do WhatsApp users know about the way Meta uses their communications that Brian Action doesn't know? I want to share as little information with Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, or any of those other bastards either, and to the best of my knowledge, Signal isn't sharing my information with anybody or even monitoring my communications.

    4. KevinP   3 years ago

      Well said. I have used Signal for maybe four years now and have gotten about 60 friends and family using it actively.

  9. Roberta   3 years ago

    test

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      Fail

  10. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

    The Reason comments section is the most FBI-proof means of communication. With all the crazy stuff we say, I doubt the FBI could handle this place.

    1. BigT   3 years ago

      The woodchipper 'incident' drew their attention, and it is unlikely they don't closely monitor .. asf A gh aG ha;

    2. mad.casual   3 years ago

      The Reason comments section is the most FBI-proof means of communication. With all the crazy stuff we say, I doubt the FBI could handle this place.

      That sounds exactly like something an FBI plant would say.
      *casts sideways glance*

      1. Dillinger   3 years ago

        no filthy Fed would ever know music like abattoir.

  11. Joe Friday   3 years ago

    Privacy is a luxury of the modern age, and like many luxuries, one we can rightly enjoy without thinking they are guaranteed and sacrosanct. Human societies of the past were mostly small, intimate, geographically stable, and without anonymity of any kind. Yes, it's great that in our urban and suburban environments not everyone knows you and your entire family going back a couple of generations, including all your past embarrassments - and worse - but let's not get carried away.

    I am fine with the FBI and other legitimate and necessary law enforcement agencies tracking the incidences of communications involving suspects, without access to content, and that is both the reality of the internet and especially cell phones. Apple and Google like to pose as protectors of our privacy while selling the exact same data to business entities for a buck. If you're doing something illegal, do it in person. I have no sympathy for your privacy in that case.

    1. Chumby   3 years ago

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    2. barfman2525   3 years ago

      I am fine with the FBI

      *barf*

    3. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   3 years ago

      You guys need to recalibrate your parody meters.

      1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

        When the supreme court has ruled men are women, no parody meter can ever again be calibrated.

    4. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      The FBI has a right to try to obtain communications between two suspects, but they don't have a right to decrypt the content of those communications.

    5. Dillinger   3 years ago

      A+ effort here Joe.

      1. perlhaqr   3 years ago

        I'm glad I looked just so I could see the monument to idiocy that Joe just erected. And like most this Joe tries to erect, it was a flop.

    6. perlhaqr   3 years ago

      Yep, that was just as stupid and bootlicking as implied by the other commenters.

      So, I'm guessing you consider 1781 the "modern era"? Something something secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

      This thinking thing might not be your forte, Joe, so you should probably stick to what you're good at. Like drooling on yourself and performing in the donkey show.

    7. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      I am fine with the FBI and other legitimate and necessary law enforcement agencies tracking the incidences of communications involving suspects,

      I have no doubt you are fine with it.

    8. JoeB   3 years ago

      Something illegal, like organizing friends and family to petition the government for a redress of grievances in person at the Capitol on Jan 6. Right?

  12. Fk_Censorship   3 years ago

    I'm more surprised that articles as interesting as this one have far less traffic (presumably) and far fewer comments than random articles dealing with oft repeated cultural war subjects. It's a shame. I expected better of libertarian readers.

    1. daveca   3 years ago

      its a tech topic and Democrat Sock Puppets know nothing about that. They dont have copy/ paste Talking Points for such topics.

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      That's always been the case. Things which anger people or get their blood up get the most engagement.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        You didn’t agree with me and Ken that Signal is the best! Fuck you!

        Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense.

  13. daveca   3 years ago

    Heres a better idea.

    GO GET A DAMNED LIFE. Real friends.

    Imaginary friends are for the 3-8 year old crowd, unless youre a Democrat where the max age is unlimited.

    Fuck FBI and Biden

    1. Zeb   3 years ago

      Messaging apps are for real friends. Or do you actually go to someone's house every time you want to say anything to them?

      1. Dillinger   3 years ago

        the commercial where the dude drove to the other dude's house to say "ell-oh-ell" was funny

      2. perlhaqr   3 years ago

        I hop on a plane every time I need to communicate with my coworkers in Europe. It's not as convenient as Signal, but it's worth it to avoid the "imaginary friend" specter.

    2. Granite   3 years ago

      Daveca, you win idiot of this comment thread award.

      1. perlhaqr   3 years ago

        He's giving Joe Friday a run for the money here.

        Dave, this is clearly not your topic of expertise.

  14. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    However, the company had to abandon plans when the FBI objected.

    That's a really loaded statement, especially without any followup explanation.

  15. Truthteller1   3 years ago

    For 99.99 percent of the population this is a real "who cares" moment.

  16. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    WhatsApp can't crack the encryption on the content of messages, but it can tell the feds that suspect A was talking to suspect B every day for several months, or whatever the case may be. That can reveal a lot in the course of an investigation.

    It can, but not being able to crack the messages is of paramount importance.

    1. perlhaqr   3 years ago

      There's a disturbing amount that can be done with metadata, even if they can't read the actual data. Though of course, protecting the payload is rather critical.

    2. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      it only 'reveals a lot' because juries are dumbasses and dont understand what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' means.

      1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

        Mostly because there is no such thing as "reasonable" any more.

  17. Dillinger   3 years ago

    when you give your information to someone else it is no longer yours.

    1. perlhaqr   3 years ago

      Which is why it's important to make it as completely worthless to any middle party as possible after handoff and before delivery.

  18. Unforgettably Forgettable   3 years ago

    Listen carefully. The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle, the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true. Keep this to yourself.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Mothers Are Losing Custody Over Sketchy Drug Tests

Emma Camp | From the June 2025 issue

Should the
Civilization Video Games Be Fun—or Real?

Jason Russell | From the June 2025 issue

Government Argues It's Too Much To Ask the FBI To Check the Address Before Blowing Up a Home

Billy Binion | 5.9.2025 5:01 PM

The U.K. Trade Deal Screws American Consumers

Eric Boehm | 5.9.2025 4:05 PM

A New Survey Suggests Illicit Opioid Use Is Much More Common Than the Government's Numbers Indicate

Jacob Sullum | 5.9.2025 3:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!