81–90 of 198 posts
Aren't they handling user data for any other case of law breaking?
>Pakistan asks Facebook and Twitter to help identify blasphemers
>Companies approached in effort to locate Pakistanis at home or abroad so they can be prosecuted or potentially extradited
This is not the story. The story is Roe v. Wade overturned due to heinous corruption of the US political process in favour of the religious right and free market libertarians.
The framing is inflammatory. What most people can agree upon is that the surveillance state is out of control. I'm sure I'll be flamed into oblivion here, but it is worth considering the headline from the perspective of the anti-abortionists. If we cannot empathize or attempt to understand those who disagree, what is the point of having a discussion? "FB and Google hand over user data, help to prosecute baby killers"…
It's one thing to make providing abortions illegal. It's quite another thing to prosecute the women.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they are good laws and bas laws, so some requests shouldn't be given in too easily.
Right, which is your second point about the law existing being the concern. Companies are simply enforcing the law, right or wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they are good laws and bas laws, so some requests shouldn't be given in too easily.
Right, which is your second point about the law existing being the concern. Companies are simply enforcing the law, right or wrong.
This is not the story. The story is Roe v. Wade overturned due to heinous corruption of the US political process in favour of the religious right and free market libertarians.
The story is Roe v. Wade was overturned due to the US political process working exactly as it as designed to, with the religious right telegraphing their play for decades, and progressives doing nothing about it except trying to fundraise on the aftermath.
The framing is inflammatory. What most people can agree upon is that the surveillance state is out of control. I'm sure I'll be flamed into oblivion here, but it is worth considering the headline from the perspective of the anti-abortionists. If we cannot empathize or attempt to understand those who disagree, what is the point of having a discussion? "FB and Google hand over user data, help to prosecute baby killers"…
I've often been puzzled by why the abortion argument is seen as a binary. The majority of people in the developed world feel that the abortion legality line should be somewhere between conception and birth. Honestly, based on my somewhat biased sampling, there's probably a similar number of people who think infanticide should sometimes be legal as people who think a single fertilized egg has a right to life.
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.…
Companies just hand over data when simply asked, they don't even need a warrant.
>Facebook and Google comply with the law. >When presented with a valid warrant they hand over the data requested. The article seems to imply that the big social media companies should selectively comply with a valid warrant based on what crime the accused has committed. I think you should either have problem with the entire procedure or agree that the procedure is valid.
> The article seems to imply that the big social media companies should selectively comply with a valid warrant They already selectively comply: "According to internal statistics provided by Meta, the company complies with government requests for user data more than 70% of the time".
Is the issue that Meta and Google comply with the law(turning in the data to crime investigators), or that the law itself is medieval? I mean, both are concerning in their own way. But the latter seems like a much much bigger problem.
> comply with the law What concerns you about this?
That is the problem: we have nothing to hide until someone changes the law. Suddenly those things that were legal yesterday become the crimes of today.