> testimony in a recent trial

Court cases are the real way to audit security.

Larping about security and complaining about companies responding to court orders only gets you so far. Its way more useful to look at what actually happens in reality.

I know it’s not germane to the Signal issue, but this caught my eye, “who previously pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists”.

The case comes with a long statement about the Antifa “organization”. Just your weekly reminder we are living under an Orwellian administration. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/antifa-cell-members-convicted...

Yes and no. Court cases certainly will disclose what capabilities various parties have come up with when it comes to security. However, there are documented cases where the government chooses to abandon prosecution for the sole purpose of preventing disclosure of some of their cyber capabilities.

True, court cases are one of the few times details actually surface

The recent Trivy / LiteLLM mess was also a security thing, and seems rather different.

The problem is that, in the current environment of dishonest and corrupt states, "what actually happens in reality" isn't the same as what happens in court because of parallel construction.