Encrypted Chat App 'Session' Leaves Australia After Visit From Police 47
Session, a small but increasingly popular encrypted messaging app, is moving its operations outside of Australia after the country's federal law enforcement agency visited an employee's residence and asked them questions about the app and a particular user. 404 Media reports: Now Session will be maintained by an entity in Switzerland. The move signals the increasing pressure on maintainers of encrypted messaging apps, both when it comes to governments seeking more data on app users, as well as targeting messaging app companies themselves, like the arrest of Telegram's CEO in August. "Ultimately, we were given the choice between remaining in Australia or relocating to a more privacy-friendly jurisdiction, such as Switzerland. For the project to continue, it could not be centred in Australia," Alex Linton, president of the newly formed Session Technology Foundation (STF) which will publish the Session app, told 404 Media in a statement. The app will still function in Australia, Linton added. Linton said that last year the Australian Federal Police (AFP) visited a Session employee at their home in the country. "There was no warrant used or meeting organised, they just went into their apartment complex and knocked on their front door," Linton said.
The AFP asked about the Session app and company, and the employee's history on the project, Linton added. The officers also asked about an ongoing investigation related to a specific Session user, he added. Linton showed 404 Media an email sent by Session's legal representatives to the AFP which reflected that series of events. Part of Session's frustration around the incident came from the AFP deciding to "visit an employee at home rather than arranging a meeting through our proper (publicly available) channels," Linton said.
The AFP asked about the Session app and company, and the employee's history on the project, Linton added. The officers also asked about an ongoing investigation related to a specific Session user, he added. Linton showed 404 Media an email sent by Session's legal representatives to the AFP which reflected that series of events. Part of Session's frustration around the incident came from the AFP deciding to "visit an employee at home rather than arranging a meeting through our proper (publicly available) channels," Linton said.
Switzerland? (Score:1)
Are they really any better? I mean, American jurisdiction extends around the world (since World War 2). I see no way out of this without anonymous development and a "swarm" of servers, VPNs, etc. to make them play whack-a-mole indefinitely. We need our bulletproof internet.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're that soft-skinned, browse at +0 or higher comment score.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are deleted comments on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
"Australia" is not the same as "America"... TFA has nothing to do with the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see how this would play out in Switzerland. Of course going to bother an employee of a company without a judge's mandate is illegal, but we'll assume that the state in this case does not care about respecting its own laws. Switzerland is a signatory of the ECHR, and therefore matters of infringement of human rights can be referred to it. In theory an ECHR ruling is binding on a member state, but I guess the state could refuse to implement the court's resolutions. In this case the other signatory membe
It always starts like this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It always starts like this... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to know if someone sides with tyranny and not liberty, start asking them how much power in government is too much. They most likely do not have a definitive answer, but their "There Ought to be a Law" tendencies will come out.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a law. The 10th Amendment comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3)
"There is a law. The 10th Amendment comes to mind."
Not in Australia, it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is a law. The 10th Amendment comes to mind."
Not in Australia, it doesn't.
unless...
Australia + US 10th Amendment = $$$$$$$$
Re: (Score:2)
How many amendments are there in the Aussie constitution?
I know they don't have the equivalent of the (US) 2nd amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been 45 proposed amendments to the Australian constitution, of which only eight were enacted. Amendments to the Australian Constitution do not work like they do for the US Constitution and are not numbered. Rather than being a separate wodge of text tacked on to the end, they are revisions, changing the text of the constitution's main body. Most constitutions are amended in this fashion, as a matter of fact. Basic rights were part of the constitution from the start, rather than needing to be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It always starts like this... (Score:2)
Re: fuck 404 media (Score:2)
Rubbish.
Re: (Score:3)
I know. They never find my files!
Wait (Score:3)
Regardless of Australia's horrific record on free speech, if I'm reading the story correctly all police did was knock on the door and engage in a voluntary communication with an employee on the subject of how the app works?
That doesn't sound like anything even in the ballpark of what happened to Durov.
Considering reputation of Australian police and legal system on matters of personal freedom, that was actually refreshingly nice of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really wanted information about the workings of
Re: (Score:3)
I'm reading the story correctly all police did was knock on the door and engage in a voluntary communication with an employee on the subject of how the app works?
Did you miss the part where they asked about a specific Session user? It is right there in the summary. That was an investigation and the police should have asked the company directly and maybe with a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
... That was an investigation and the police should have asked the company directly and maybe with a warrant.
You can't actually ask a company. You would end up asking a person who represents the company. That is already indirect, partially due to treating companies as people entities. And "maybe with a warrant" is only if they don't choose to cooperate and there is justification for a warrant - should they not just ask first?
An investigation where they ask people who are directly involved seems to make perfect sense, IMO. I don't know about AU, but people don't have to let the police in here without a warrant, and
Re: (Score:3)
all police did was knock on the door and engage in a voluntary communication
Sending armed police to someone's home is not the way to have a friendly conversation.
If they had no intention of intimidating, why not just make a phone call?
Re: (Score:2)
Are the Aussie police always armed? I think they only carry when they need to.
Re:Wait (Score:4, Insightful)
And they were entirely out of line to do so.
If the cops had any real and legitimate need for the company's data, they could and SHOULD have told their story to a judge to have a proper subpoena issued to the company. That subpeona could then have been reviewed by Session's lawyers. And, when shown to be hinky, said subpoena could be contested and squashed when it turned out to be an illegitimate case of overreach... which we know it would have been, because the police decided to bypass due process and skip the subpoena in the first place.
To target, accost, intimidate, and accuse an individual employee who did not commit whatever "crime" they're claiming to "investigate" is beyond-the-pale intolerable. Or at least it would be (a career-ender for the perfidious police who tried to bypass proper processes) if the "justice" system were actually just.
Re: (Score:2)
>Considering reputation of Australian police and legal system on matters of personal freedom, that was actually refreshingly nice of them.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, some local cop took down the addresses of people who had Harris/Walz campaign signs at their houses and then paid them a polite visit.
Clear intimidation.
Even a polite visit from the police sends a strong message.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
It didn't. No one has Harris/Walz signs up.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Wait (Score:2)
No access to Google huh, coward?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They turned up at a private residence to demand information about a company product and a user of that product. This is information that is deemed Commercial in Confidence in the first instance,, as well as subject to data protection laws on the part of the user. If they want the information, they can go through the proper channels to try and get it. Otherwise, they can go fuck themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
all police did was knock on the door
Doesn't Australia have a Right To Disconnect [npr.org] law?
Just tell the cops that you're off the clock now.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not employing the person, so that is not applicable.
Also employee didn't need any such reasons to refuse talking. He could've just refused to talk. Story makes it fairly clear that talk was consensual
Perhaps a Feint (Score:3)
If Session were broken they wouldn't need to get a warrant, they could just steal the data.
Yet this "visit" sure seems like a way to maximize attention.
"Oh, they totally needed to intimidate an employee to get info on a user!"
Moving the company to Switzerland might be a smart move regardless but this whole scenario seems a little too on the nose.
Be careful out there. There's more than one way to lull people into a false sense of security.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say the incident really happened. I wouldn't be publicizing it as a reason why I moved to Switzerland. I'd sooner say it was a 'pre-planned move' and 'has no relationship to the recent incident'.
I'd rather not give national authorities the 'failure to cooperate with an investigation' atop all the other crap they could charge them with.
The argument goes... (Score:2)
On the other side, law enforcement want tech companies to be able to comply