johndoylecape

Thanks! No worries. I'm trying to respond to a few more comments, but seems like the thread is winding down.

This is correct. We talked about canaries a bunch internally and came to the same conclusion-- not really worth it in this context (but please do offer up a model that makes sense if you see one).

I came to the conclusion the best we can do is what you see in our privacy policy: we notify our users when we're served with legal process that is not subject to a gag order, and we pledge to push back on any law enforcement request we receive that is not properly formed or narrowly tailored as required by law. I'd love input/ideas on how to be stronger here.

I'm 4 years removed from the company at this point, so any opinion I could offer would not be much more than any rando on the internet reacting to news stories.

This is right. Deploying our own packet core and IMS core, building our own BSS from scratch. All of this stuff is expensive (and hard). We're hoping to be able to bring the price down over time.

Hey thanks for the question! I was indeed an Echo. I loved my time in SF, and I learned a lot about being a good teammate and doing hard things in ambiguous environments, and a bit about secure comms. The first two will help at any startup, and the 3rd doesn't hurt at Cape...

Only you know if you want to jump into SFAS. I knew I'd always regret not doing it, which made the decision easy for me.

It's not. We chose this baseline sort of by default based on the practices of some other major carriers. Your question is a good one, and we'll take it as feedback.

You just made the list.

Thanks, it's a good point.

But to be clear, you DO actually know that other cell service providers are selling your data to law enforcement:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/25/att-secretl...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/09/court-rejects-ve...

Great question. The product is basically the same-- it's a cell phone network and we sell connectivity to it.

A helpful thing to keep in mind is that everyone has basically 2 use cases for their cell phones:

1. Send and receive calls and SMS 2. Connect to the internet

Whether you're a national security professional, an investigative journalist, or an average consumer who values privacy, that's what you do with your phone. So if we can build features that make you more secure and more private across those two use cases, we have a product that can help both government and consumer users.

Sometimes when people ask the "conflict" question they mean some version of "but doesn't the government then ask you for a backdoor to get all the data?" All we can really do here is stand by our privacy policy. We store the minimum amount of data possible, we promise not to sell your data to anyone, we notify our users if we receive legal process on their account that is not subject to a gag order, and we pledge to push back on any law enforcement request we receive that is not well formed and narrowly tailored as required by law.

The backdoor/honeypot fears are often related to the Anom story that came out a few years ago. It's not a perfect rebuttal, but the reporter that broke that story has written about Cape a couple of times. You can read those articles here:

https://www.404media.co/privacy-telecom-cape-introduces-disa...

https://www.404media.co/i-dont-own-a-cellphone-can-this-priv...

Also, the reporter who broke the Anom story has written about Cape a couple of times: https://www.404media.co/i-dont-own-a-cellphone-can-this-priv...

https://www.404media.co/privacy-telecom-cape-introduces-disa...

Doyle here :) I'm very proud of my military service!

Prior to Cape, I led the national security business at Palantir. That experience was actually the catalyst for Cape. It’s where I first learned about the massive array of vulnerabilities that exist in our current cellular networks. I saw how those gaps impacted not just government organizations, but everyday people, and I realized that the mobile phones we carry every day are perhaps the single largest risk to our privacy.

I needed that experience to understand the depth of the problem, but once I left to start Cape, that connection ended. Cape has no ties to Palantir. We aren't a subsidiary, we aren't a "front," and we don't share data with them. The only thing we took from Palantir was the desire to fix a broken system. If you want to see me and some of the rest of our founding team talk more about this topic, you can watch this video on our Instagram page here.

Another related theory I’ve seen online is that Cape is a honeypot for law enforcement. Cape is not a honeypot. It’s so hard to prove a negative, but at least I can say it clearly and out loud: Cape is not a honeypot.

We are a group of individuals who deeply value privacy. That mission carries across everything we do, from our work with the US government and allies, to everyday people, and everything in between.

We are incredibly proud to work with people who protect our country by ensuring they have secure, trusted communications wherever they are. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-18/us-navy-t...

We also work with the EFF to provide investigative journalists and activists with free Cape service so they can do their work safely. https://www.cape.co/journalists-and-activists

We partner with non-profits to support victims of domestic abuse who are facing cyber-stalking and digital harassment. https://www.cape.co/break-free

We are a young company growing exponentially, and we don't plan on slowing down. We know we have to earn your trust every day. The truth is, no one else is building a high-quality, first-class solution to these specific cellular problems. We are committed to being the ones who do it right.

That's a fair point, we should change that verbiage.

This Anom comp comes up a lot. It's super hard to prove a negative, so no matter many how times I say "Cape is not a honeypot," the critics will just respond "that is exactly what a honeypot would say."

We're working on some ideas to address this with audits etc, but it will always be tough. However, if you like the idea, and like the features, then maybe it is worth your time to do the work and get comfortable with the company. Because we're the only ones providing some of these features, and we have a lot more in the hopper still to come. I hope we can win your trust at some point.

I hear what you're saying, though another framing would be "learn about serious problem, build company to fix serious problem."

Hey, John Doyle here (CEO of Cape). I'm happy to dig into how I run the company, or the infra providers we use. I actually think we're pretty upstanding! If there are questions I can answer that will put your fears to rest, let me know.