Live data from Hacker News

Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

businessinsider.com

31–40 of 198 posts

Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

#31
post #10
post #9

Is this unexpected? Of course, they follow warrants, why wouldn’t they?

Because they didn't support E2EE and homomorphic encryption.

The Techcrunch article[1] (linked in TFA) mentions FB Messenger was used, which does not have E2EE.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/27/digital-data-roe-wade-repr...

Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

#32
post #23

It shouldn't be up to Facebook/Google to decide what is a crime, nor in which cases wiretapping should be allowed.

And as far as I know it isn't. At least these companies certainly comply with lawful warrants. They may be more helpful in cases of their choosing (e.g. CSAM) but are they really expected to refuse when a court orders them to assist with an investigation on the basis that they (to the extent possible for a company) disagree with the law in question?

I wanted to reply to GP with something along these lines, but I could not tell what the GPs comment actually meant, it was too ambiguous.

> It shouldn't be up to Facebook/Google to decide what is a crime, nor in which cases wiretapping should be allowed.

Could mean either:

1. FB/Google should be prevented from deciding what is and is not a crime. They don't set the laws.

Or

2. FB/Google aren't setting the laws, so can't be blamed when complying with those laws.

Maybe it's my sleepiness, but I just cannot decide which of the two statements were intended by GP.

Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

#34

User chat logs and search history released by social media companies to police can be used to prosecute people for abortion, even when they are being investigated for other reasons.

> User chat logs and search history released by social media companies to police can be used to prosecute people for abortion, even when they are being investigated for other reasons. Firstly, can you even prosecute a woman for abortion? Aren't they legal? Secondly, if the abortion is illegal, it's not unusual for the state to prosecute someone when the investigation of that person reveals other crimes. What would yo…

> Firstly, can you even prosecute a woman for abortion? Aren't they legal?

In case you've been living under a rock for the last while: several American states have banned abortions[0][1] after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade. The federal government failed to implement any laws to safeguard access to abortions so overturning Roe vs Wade was all that conservatives needed.

Some states have exceptions for rape and incest, some don't. Texas even offers a sizeable bounty for reporting abortions. This has already resulted in medical care being refused to women carrying stillborn children and other pregnancy complications fatal to either the mother or the child out of fear of prosecution.

As for secondary criminal activity: I agree, if the police finds other illegal acts during a legal investigation, they should be allowed to act on that. This is the proof that the whole "if you've got nothing to hide" narrative surrounding state surveillance is dangerous.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-ro...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law_in_the_United_Sta...

Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

#35

User chat logs and search history released by social media companies to police can be used to prosecute people for abortion, even when they are being investigated for other reasons.

> User chat logs and search history released by social media companies to police can be used to prosecute people for abortion, even when they are being investigated for other reasons. Firstly, can you even prosecute a woman for abortion? Aren't they legal? Secondly, if the abortion is illegal, it's not unusual for the state to prosecute someone when the investigation of that person reveals other crimes. What would yo…

You should do the bare minimum to familiarize yourself before wading in to this particular topic.

Abortion legality varies by state in the US. This is a recent development.

I wouldn’t expect to be prosecuted, or even investigated, for typing “how people get away with bank robbery” into Google. Or for watching The Dark Knight.

Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

#36

User chat logs and search history released by social media companies to police can be used to prosecute people for abortion, even when they are being investigated for other reasons.

> User chat logs and search history released by social media companies to police can be used to prosecute people for abortion, even when they are being investigated for other reasons. Firstly, can you even prosecute a woman for abortion? Aren't they legal? Secondly, if the abortion is illegal, it's not unusual for the state to prosecute someone when the investigation of that person reveals other crimes. What would yo…

In the USA, abortions are now illegal in many states. This was a major change that took place last year.

Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

#37

Baffling to me that people still use Messenger. Not even switching the company is necessary, with WhatsApp at least they'd have message encryption.

I’d say most WhatsApp users don’t realize they are backing up to Google Drive in clear text.

This is key. Both parties need to trust that their messages are staying within the realms of WhatsApp itself, and with the usage of disappearing mode, not leaving any traces of a conversation.

They should probably be using encryption within the chat itself (and not, you know, speaking in plain English) to add another layer. Perhaps changing the keys frequently via an agreed method (thinking about how to do that safely without leaving another trace) to render older messages 100% undecryptable.

But yeah, chances are all of that data is going to be accessed and they agreed to it! It's right there in the privacy policy people don't bother reading

Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

#38
post #29

The only take away from this article is that somehow they could read the change logs. Doesn't that fly in the face of metas own claims to not be able to? BI seems to be implying that abortion shouldn't be treated as a crime in places where it is a crime.

WhatsApp is supposedly end to end encrypted. Does Meta claim anything similar about its other platforms?

Is it really? I always assumed it was like Zoom end to end encryption where one of the “ends” is a Facebook data center. How can a user prove the claim of end to end encryption?

Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

#39

It shouldn't be up to Facebook/Google to decide what is a crime, nor in which cases wiretapping should be allowed.

Abortions are now a crime in several American states, close if not equal to murder. These companies just do what they've always done when it comes to murder cases: hand over the data when the authorities demand it through warrants. As they should, in theory.

Facebook and Google are not to blame here; they're simply doing what the law demands of them. These companies are not above the law, they cannot refuse warrants. Blame Nebraskan and American federal law for this situation.

With a bit of luck, this situation will make these companies put more priority into E2EE. Had these conversations been done through Signal, there was likely nothing to be found or handed over.

Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers

#40

The only take away from this article is that somehow they could read the change logs. Doesn't that fly in the face of metas own claims to not be able to? BI seems to be implying that abortion shouldn't be treated as a crime in places where it is a crime.

> BI seems to be implying that abortion shouldn't be treated as a crime in places where it is a crime.

Abortion was explicitly legally protected for 50 years and only became a crime in some localities last year. There aren't many "crimes" like that.

Post reply on HN