Is this unexpected? Of course, they follow warrants, why wouldn’t they?
Because they didn't support E2EE and homomorphic encryption.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/27/digital-data-roe-wade-repr...
31–40 of 198 posts
Is this unexpected? Of course, they follow warrants, why wouldn’t they?
Because they didn't support E2EE and homomorphic encryption.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/27/digital-data-roe-wade-repr...
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?
> 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.
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 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...
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…
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.
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…
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.
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
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?
It shouldn't be up to Facebook/Google to decide what is a crime, nor in which cases wiretapping should be allowed.
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.
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.
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.