OP title is not backed up by linked article whatsoever. The article says nothing at all to that effect.
The article says this, however, which I don't really understand:
> He suggested one of the chat's other members could have warned the police, but if that were the case, that other member would have to be charged, not Verma.
I believe the part you are asking about means: Verma did not make a threat, but a private joke in a group chat, so he's not liable for the police reaction. If his friend is the one who informed the police, while knowing it was a joke, the friend should be charged instead.
The submitted title broke the HN guidelines badly. From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
(Normally we'd revert the title, but the comments in this thread have been so skewed by submitted title that the thread won't make sense anymore if I do that.)
It's an /assumption/ that British intelligence able to read and flag private Snapchat messages, as the article literally states, "The trial did not make clear how the British services managed to have access to Verma's private messages, the judge stressed."
The truth is, it isn't public knowledge how this unfolded and anything suggesting otherwise is conjecture.
Also, this post doesn't' reflect the article title, "Spanish judge clears British teen of Menorca flight bomb hoax charges".
If we're speculating, a much more likely explanation is that Snapchat moderation teams monitor certain words in certain areas, flagging for example any message containing "bomb" sent from an airport.
This is arguably even creepier than government surveillance, since it implies Snapchat employees are looking at the content of private chats and the user may never know.
There's no need to speculate about encryption or surveillance.
"we may need to enforce our Terms and other policies. In some cases, we may also use or share your information to cooperate with law enforcement requests, escalate safety issues to law enforcement, industry partners, or others, or comply with our legal obligations."
Not clear if it was message interception or (maybe more likely) Snapchat have their own moderation that can refer outward. The text is not e2e encrypted
> He suggested one of the chat's other members could have warned the police, but if that were the case, that other member would have to be charged, not Verma
This doesn't make sense to me. Why would that other member be charged for reporting a threat?
I thought they might have been talking about reporting a false threat, or something of that nature?
If you are a comedian working on a joke and write one about a political assassination in your private journal, certainly you can't be charged with communicating a threat, because you did not communicate it. But if a friend/enemy finds your notebook, knows you have no intent to harm, but reports the journal to authorities out of spite anyways, then the friend could be culpable for communicating a false threat, even though the joke is in your handwriting. Maybe they were getting at something like that?
In any case, it was very awkward wording at best for a report from Reuters, it should have been either explained or left out.
Readit News
The article says this, however, which I don't really understand:
> He suggested one of the chat's other members could have warned the police, but if that were the case, that other member would have to be charged, not Verma.
Can anyone help explain this?
If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
(Normally we'd revert the title, but the comments in this thread have been so skewed by submitted title that the thread won't make sense anymore if I do that.)
The truth is, it isn't public knowledge how this unfolded and anything suggesting otherwise is conjecture.
Also, this post doesn't' reflect the article title, "Spanish judge clears British teen of Menorca flight bomb hoax charges".
This is arguably even creepier than government surveillance, since it implies Snapchat employees are looking at the content of private chats and the user may never know.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
"we may need to enforce our Terms and other policies. In some cases, we may also use or share your information to cooperate with law enforcement requests, escalate safety issues to law enforcement, industry partners, or others, or comply with our legal obligations."
https://values.snap.com/privacy/privacy-policy
There is no mystery or need for intelligence skullduggery here.
This doesn't make sense to me. Why would that other member be charged for reporting a threat?
I'm not suggesting they should be, but just following the same logic as your comment.
If you are a comedian working on a joke and write one about a political assassination in your private journal, certainly you can't be charged with communicating a threat, because you did not communicate it. But if a friend/enemy finds your notebook, knows you have no intent to harm, but reports the journal to authorities out of spite anyways, then the friend could be culpable for communicating a false threat, even though the joke is in your handwriting. Maybe they were getting at something like that?
In any case, it was very awkward wording at best for a report from Reuters, it should have been either explained or left out.
What more do you need to know?