And they wonder why we don't trust Big Tech.
Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
161–170 of 198 posts
Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I agree, if the police finds other illegal acts during a legal investigation, they should be allowed to act on that. I'm not sure this principle is a good one. Almost everyone had probably broken a law or two (yes, this meane there are too many bad laws, let me know if youve an idea of how to solve that), so by investigating someone for some random thing they haven't done you've got a good chance of finding somethi…
>yes, this meane there are too many bad laws, let me know if youve an idea of how to solve that) I, in fact, do. All laws come with baked in sunset dates. No exceptions. Furthermore, it's clear there is a need for some sort of secondary legislature or sub committee of the primary dedicated to the repeal of bad law. Then again, if that worked, we wouldn't necessarily be in the problem we're in.
> I, in fact, do. All laws come with baked in sunset dates. No exceptions.
The problem with this, I imagine, is that when the sunset dates comes around, and a new political party is in control, they will let the new law lapse and laws will be ping logging back in forth given they even get the votes to go back in effect.
This would be terrible for very important laws like the Civil Rights Act.
Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sounds like a trip into medieval times? Government control over corporations? Corporation oversight over private lives? Isn’t that what the new generation of enlightened and progressive people wanted?
But wait, isn't that what was happening in medieval times: the church ruled over the peasants, the kings ruled over the states and everyone was happy living in a liberal and free world - well at least they believed that.
That was the theory; in practice, the very limited communication (hard to handle fast-evolving situations when couriers from Rome to Amiens take a few weeks at best) & enforcement means (you have 100 guys with spears? We are 200 with pitchforks, come get us) led to a much more decentralized power structure than what is stereotypically understood.
Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically it was illegal the whole time in many places and the supreme court only last year recognized that they never had the power to prevent states from enforcing their own laws on the matter. In states where it was illegal it may not even be ex-post-facto for them to prosecute for events that took place prior to last year's supreme court ruling. Anyway, the real takeaway should be that businesses should not be…
> Technically it was illegal the whole time in many places and the supreme court only last year recognized that they never had the power to prevent states from enforcing their own laws on the matter. I don't agree with this "technical" interpretation at all. Nobody would have said in 2020 that technically abortion is illegal in many places. Just because the Supreme Court changed its mind doesn't wipe everyone else's…
It doesn't matter what you agree with. Plenty of legal scholars said exactly that, so you're wrong.
Roe ruled that certain state laws criminalizing abortion could not be enforced. But Roe's ruling was found to be unconstitutional and invalid. It was invalid the day Roe was ruled, not the day it was overruled.
Those same states laws criminalizing abortion, which were on the books before Roe and are still on the books, were always legal and enforceable because Roe never was. That is what the court determined last year.
Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Technically it was illegal the whole time in many places and the supreme court only last year recognized that they never had the power to prevent states from enforcing their own laws on the matter. I don't agree with this "technical" interpretation at all. Nobody would have said in 2020 that technically abortion is illegal in many places. Just because the Supreme Court changed its mind doesn't wipe everyone else's…
It doesn't matter what you agree with. Plenty of legal scholars said exactly that, so you're wrong. Roe ruled that certain state laws criminalizing abortion could not be enforced. But Roe's ruling was found to be unconstitutional and invalid. It was invalid the day Roe was ruled, not the day it was overruled. Those same states laws criminalizing abortion, which were on the books before Roe and are still on the books,…
> Plenty of legal scholars said exactly that, so you're wrong.
LOL. What exactly, numerically, does "Plenty" mean, and how does it compare to "all"? Of course, both the majority and minority of the Supreme Court in the Dobbs opinion are legal scholars, but they disagreed vehemently with each other.
Your response sounds very Orwellian to me. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies should not enforce laws. They should just follow them.
Except in this case, they are doing both. To not do what you're asking (not turn over data on abortion seekers), they would be breaking the law if they received a valid warrant. Now... They could comply with the law by not hoovering up as much data as they do, thereby becoming useless to both advertiser and law enforcement alike.... But that jeopardizes their business model.
Turning over data as required by law/warrant is not enforcing a law. It's following the law.
Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
#167>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.
For me, the takeaway is that they collect and persist too much personalized data about users, and it's a shame that people only start caring when it affects abortion access.
Now, Google, to their credit, claims[1] they now purge information about users who visit abortion clinics or related places, but ... that isn't very reassuring. Even if they excise some related portion of user data, they still have enough other data to figure it out once law enforcement has access -- and there's more stuff the law would be after than just abortion! You'd be expecting Google to play whack-a-mole with every latest "activity that needs protection"!
But yes, you're correct, it's far too late to identify what Google's doing wrong after abortion is illegal, and after Google has that data about you, and after they're served with a warrant on that basis.
[1] This article https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/18/google-workers-sign-p...
which cites this blog post: https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/protecting-pe...
Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
#168Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Unless they change the laws and suddenly you have something to hide.
I remember when Schmidt came out with this line thinking the same thing. But back then it seemed like a distant and improbable scenario - I objected to his statement more on point of principle than out of any realistic sense that it was things were going to get that bad in the near future. Turns out they did. (before anyone says it - yeah. Back then there were probably already enough examples of law enforcement overr…
> But back then it seemed like a distant and improbable scenario
I am trying to understand this perspective. I was there and nothing seemed improbable or remote. The remoteness was merely a function of technical & economic conditions. Historic precedents, domestic and foreign, past or near present, all pointed the same direction, underlining high probabilities.
Pessimism is rarely the correct inclination, with the exception of questions concerning freedom, power, security, and control. It is appropriately rational to question and highlight worst case outcomes in such cases.
This same pattern is happening yet again ('surprise!') with generative AI. Maybe it is necessary to assure that 'yes, this technology is very cool' as red flags are raised.
It is a very simple thought, backed by unassailable historic evidence: Humans enjoy lording it over other human beings. We should never create systems that permit a tiny tiny subset to realize such base desires. A very simple idea, truly.
Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they are good laws and bas laws, so some requests shouldn't be given in too easily.
Who decides which laws are bad?
The courts, and there’s precedent saying a companies can petition the courts to review the law before handing over data.
And given Google et.al. actions in other avenues against these laws, it’s sad they aren’t challenging them.
Re: Facebook and Google hand over user data, help police prosecute abortion seekers
#170Is 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.
Both are problems, but naive people expect Google and Facebook to do differently. Google has always been intertwined with the government, and Facebook was absorbed early on. I am not denigrating people by using the word naive. Those who are most naive need protection and knowledge. More tyrannical/medieval rule seems to be trending.