A 17-year-old from Nebraska and her mother are facing criminal charges including performing an illegal abortion and concealing a dead body after police obtained the pair’s private chat history from Facebook, court documents published by Motherboard show.
Not really. I mean, what did you expect from a company that’s responsible for manipulation of two major, major elections (one in the US and UK each) as well as a genocide in SEA?
There is no such thing as a private chat on a platform you do not own. And even if you DO own the platform it is only as private as the participants decide it to be. Hopefully people start to realize this before complete non-privacy becomes the accepted norm.
Private doesn’t means the privacy in this case just a formal formatting. If they were not discussing in a publicly available chat then it is already considered private by the definition but yeah, 99% true.
Aside from any moral or political views, it amuses me when people do criminal acts and fail to realize police can inspect personal data like text messages, email, and social media. I think people smart enough to realize that are smart enough to avoid committing a crime in the first place. Though there are smart criminals that get away with it, you just don’t hear about them because they don’t get caught. In any case I tend to think being stupid is prerequisite to being a criminal.
They had the agency to take care of this for 20 damn weeks into the pregnancy where they were at 100% legally, even disregarding the options we all have to prevent conception in the first place.
On top of that, fetuses are viable outside the womb at 24 weeks, assuming the pregnant woman doesn’t kill it at week 28 using medicine as this one did. I can’t help but feel that makes 24 weeks a pretty important deadline for when this sort of choice is more than just about the pregnant woman.
That’s a massive oversimplification of things. Intentionally removing nuance doesn’t help people.
Even if the difference is largely academic, the police needed a warrant to get this info from Facebook. This info was not directly government owned and directly available to law enforcement.
Proper opsec and infosec is all about controlling for the threat level of your adversary. If you have nation state level adversaries then yes, you’re screwed by simple merit of doing things online where the US government has major internet relays tapped at the source. That isn’t the case here and black and white statements just muddy the waters and make proper security feel impossible to the average person. Don’t help the powers that be to make you and others feel helpless. That helps no one.
The threat level here was minor. They told the police where to look for evidence.
Beyond that, I’m not personally going to continue into the rabbit hole of the current hellscape post the godawful repeal of Roe v Wade. That situation is absolutely fucked.
As always, don’t talk with police, and don’t discuss illegal activity unencrypted or connected to your real life identity.
the police needed a warrant to get this info from Facebook.
In the USA there’s due process required for authorities to gain access to your private data, not true in many countries.
As always, don’t talk with police, and don’t discuss illegal activity unencrypted or connected to your real life identity.
A person has to assume anything put out there over the internet or phone network can be inspected under criminal investigation. One has to be a dumb ass not to realize that. I’ve even seen stories of criminals making social media posts showing off their robbery loot. Also the style of wearing their pants falling down. Make sure to trip and fall when running from the cops. Good thing criminals make it easy for police.
Yeah, always invoke your right to remain silent. I watch a lot of crime shows, actually my wife is more into it than me so I get roped into watching them. It baffles me how criminals will sit there and let police interrogate them until they confess. Maybe it’s because they think they can talk their way out of it, but then why confess. As a US citizen you can shut down an interview with police any time you want. But it’s good suspects are stupid like that, makes it easy for police. They have a tough job dealing with all the knuckleheads out there.
In the USA there’s due process required for authorities to gain access to your private data
This is only the case when the data is being obtained by traditional means. As we’ve seen recently, authorities buying data from data brokers completely circumvents any sense of due process on a technicality.
Yeah, always invoke your right to remain silent. […] It baffles me how criminals will sit there and let police interrogate them until they confess. Maybe it’s because they think they can talk their way out of it, but then why confess.
Oh absolutely. Even if you are entirely innocent, the police use psycological manipulation as routine part of interrogation. They’d sometimes rather you get confused as to whether you actually may have done something wrong, and eventually admit to something you didn’t do, than to let you go as innocent. There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of “cooperating” (such a loaded and innacurate word in this context), whether you’re innocent or guilty.
Yes you can make yourself a prime suspect by talking too much, even if you’re completely innocent. If you don’t have a solid alibi and you “know too much” you’re it.
I think there used to be a lot more railroading of innocent suspects back in the day, but with modern advances in forensic technology that happens greatly less. Still happens though. You know that cliché about every convict saying he’s innocent. After the stuff I’ve seen watching these crime documentaries for years, I start to think maybe half of them are telling the truth.
You’re right, and there’s two things going on here, one group of people is debating the morality of what these people did in the first place, but the other take is platform compliance with law enforcement and more generally the government’s ability to access your data.
You’re contrasting that a warrant should not really be a concern compared with the government’s ability to perform truly invasive surveillance potentially without any warrant.
I don’t know that you really disagree with person you’re replying to, though. Yeah, if people are doing something their government classifies as illegal, talking about it on unencrypted spaces where it’s subject to a warrant is dumb.
Very few people would be alarmed when Facebook turns over data related to human traffickers. Some would. But for those who are focused on morality, would it matter if the method was, say, the NSA cracking encryption without a warrant? Or tapping communications through an encryption back door?They’d probably be more worried about admitting the evidence than whether the method should be allowed.
It’s certainly worth considering that if governments are criminalizing behavior people believe ought not to be a crime, they need to be more aware that communication security is a thing and there are methods and tools to help with that, and powers the government have to thwart it. But who the government is going after will make people care about the issue differently.
Thinking about hypotheticals where this plays out in other scenarios doesn’t seem like an oversimplification, it’s a valid consideration, at least for public awareness.
What? They had 20 weeks to do this properly with medical supervision but waited to do shit until week 28 of pregnancy, then most importantly broke rule #1: Don’t talk to the fucking police. They admitted to the police that they planned it using FB messenger. Whether the police got the DMs isn’t as relevant as the fact that when they were questioned they admitted it.
How long do you think that child would last being parented by someone who wanted their child aborted so they could wear their jeans again.
Abortions should be easily available to any and all women, in every state.
I don’t agree with their decision making length, but if abortion wasnt such a fucking touchy subject, the woman probably would have done so as soon as she found out.
Her body, her choice.
Men and politics need to get the fuck out of the way.
Men can have an opinion on the matter. We are talking about potential children here so if course everyone will have an opinion.
Saying Men shouldn’t have an opinion on this matter only proved that you shouldn’t have an opinion.
Having a vagina is not a prerequisite to have an opinion on abortion.
In any case, the best argument I can think of about abortion is that the fetus seem to have a consciousness at around 24 weeks. Consciousness is what we care to protect. In my opinion, at 24 weeks, a fetus is a person worth of protection.
And she didn’t.
And mostly men around america make it a massive political issue.
I’m not condoning the length of time it took her to decide.
But I’m also not conding your response saying she had x amount of time, avoiding my inquiry about the ability to not be a good parent.
What’s worse? A small amount of time for a fetus, or a lifetime when the kid boils to death in the car cause mommy wanted to go shopping?
Quit wishing misery on birthed children all in the name of a life. It doesn’t work that way.
If it was her body her choice, and she had education about it, or possibly free access to birth control, this might not have been a story. Sadly, it seems America is walking backwards with women’s reproductive rights.
I’m not going to get worked up about a woman aborting her fetus for whatever reason. Make all other options more attainable and then it’s a conversation to have, but not really.
If I found out my wife would have a higher than average statistical chance of dying while giving birth, she could make her choice. My preference would be, let’s just try for another and hope it doesn’t put her life at more risk.
This isn’t the case here, but how about we throw pitchforks at the penis that impregnated this young woman? It does take 2.
There are hundreds of possible reasons for why this 17 year old did not manage to go through the abortion in time. But you really really want her to be an evil murderer who did this… For what? You really think she did this because she is just an awful human being and therefore now as punishment deserves to have to go through pregnancy and childbirth?
It is her body not yours. When you get pregnant and feel the moral obligation to go through the whole process of birthing it than you can still make this decision. But it’s not yours to make or judge about because it’s the actual already living body of another person.
This pair are completely incompetent and should absolutely never become parents/grandparents.
However the fact that police investigated, asked for chat logs from a social media provider, and are intimidating the two of them and we’re all talking about it is the entire point.
Fear. They want us to be at reach others throats on this issue.
You sound like a reasonable person. I think we can both agree that what the police are doing right now is wrong. Even at 20 weeks, which is very late in the pregnancy game, as you say, the decision for what to do with her body should have been between her and her doctor only.
We should not have courts getting involved in this crap again like it’s pre the 70s all over. Those were not good times for women.
The two of them could absolutely have been smarter about what they did. But what they did shouldn’t be receiving national attention because it should have stayed between the two of them and their doctor.
She was 7 months pregnant. That baby is viable outside the womb in many scenarios. It’s disgusting to abort a child at that point. The local law allows abortions up to 5 months into the pregnancy (20 weeks). That’s plenty of time to make a decision, and a pretty liberal allowance. Prosecution of this mother and daughter is justified and there is nothing wrong with Meta complying with the info request.
I had yet to read the article when commenting, here’s more details:
The article:
Court and police records show that police began investigating 17-year-old Celeste Burgess and her mother Jessica Burgess after receiving a tip-off that the pair had illegally buried a stillborn child given birth to prematurely by Celeste. The two women told detective Ben McBride of the Norfolk, Nebraska Police Division that they’d discussed the matter on Facebook Messenger, which prompted the state to issue Meta with a search warrant for their chat history and data including log-in timestamps and photos.
From Motherboard (where you also can read court documents):
The state’s case relies on evidence from the teenager’s private Facebook messages, obtained directly from Facebook by court order, which show the mother and daughter allegedly bought medication to induce abortion online, and then disposed of the body of the fetus.
According to court records, Celeste Burgess, 17, and her mother, Jessica Burgess, bought medication called Pregnot designed to end pregnancy. Pregnot is a kit of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is often used to safely end pregnancy in the first trimester. In this case, Burgess was 28-weeks pregnant, which is later in pregnancy than mifepristone and misoprostol are recommended for use. It’s also later than Nebraska’s 20-week post-fertilization abortion ban, which makes allowances only if the pregnant person is at risk of death or “serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” (Nebraska’s abortion laws have not changed since Roe v Wade was overturned).
Yes, I’m not arguing or anything, I forgot to mention I appreciated the added context you provided. Just wanted to further expand on it for those wanting to get more context, as it seems to be a lot of people in the thread that didn’t read the article
It’s not your decision and should not be the government’s. Only the pregnant person and their doctor matter. Possible input from their parents and/or other potential-parent of the fetus.
You’re giving away your right wingery too easily. When you call a fetus a baby, red flag, but sometimes people just use that (if the fetus is an intended pregnancy and the parent(s) plan to actually have a child, usually). So, in the interest of debate-bro “good faith,” ok.
Referring to abortion as disgusting. Well, that pretty much just ruined anything else you had to say. I bet open heart surgery or getting your arm reset after breaking can be pretty disgusting to most of us who aren’t used to such things. They’re all still medical procedures and their disgustingness or not is completely irrelevant to outsiders to the procedure. And if you’re simply disgusted at the idea of the procedure being done, that meaning, well one choose better words and two, yeah, that’s just reactionary mindset creeping in and spewing out your little fingers. At the end of the day whatever little nuggets of shit were implanted into YOUR brain as a child (such as “abortions are only valid until X arbitrarily decided date”) are irrelevant to the world and to this completely other human being seeking a medical procedure. Long story short: it’s none of your fucking business. A fetus is NOT a baby or a child and you’re purposely wrongly using the word to conflate the two. Again… right wingery…
Prosecution is not warrant for a seeking to obtain medical procedures. This isn’t the year 1647. Please fucking stop.
If you were discussing a purely rhetorical topic on “the moral and ethics of abortions and when they’re done” maybe you’d have some valid points and perhaps, because my brain was also rotted by arbitrary religious deadlines growing up, I’d be inclined to agree with hypothetical “if it were MY gf/wife, I’d want…” whatever to happen. But at the end of the day this isn’t our partner, it wasn’t our body, we aren’t doctors involved in the decision, we aren’t the person’s parent(s), we aren’t fucking Jesus or whatever. It’s not our decision to make, it’s no one’s but the person with the fetus under the care of a qualified physician. Who, btw, very well might be, and I’d assume probably was, advising towards birth and then surrendering for adoption. But it’s not their decision either. Just one single person gets that right with some important advisors along the way. We are none of those people, so, we and the government should probably fuck off forever.
And Zuck can completely fuck himself. Not even going to rant on that because corporations bending over and spreading fully for the government at the slightest hint of a request for private data has been happening for decades. They’re morally bankrupt cowards. Even protected from personal legal liability (by their corporations, which do provide that, unfortunately in most cases) they won’t even attempt to stand up for privacy rights if nothing else. Gross.
It’s not a “dunk” you debate pervert. It’s informing the uninformed in a generalized fashion.
Reading is hard. School was hard. I’m sorry. It wasn’t your fault. Someone failed you along the way. I’m sorry that happened to you. If you keep reading and think really really hard, though, it might get better. I can’t promise anything 😔
7 months is entirely viable and no doctor would recommend an abortion at 7 months barring some painful fatal disease in the fetus (am a physician myself) that’s why it was an illegal sketchy abortion. Even if the life of the mother were in danger it’d be an early delivery that would get performed, not an abortion.
This is the kind of case that the anti abortion rights folks will point to as a reason why abortion should be illegal so for so many people here to support this particular case is wild, you’re doing more harm than good.
You’re not a physician because no physician worth a grain of shit would be concerned about the fetus and not the insane overreach of government forcing the endangerment of the pregnant person’s life.
More right wingery.
If you are concerned with the fetus here in any fashion, sorry to be the first to break the news, but you have a reactionary take on this topic. I’ve been incredibly generous even (which many purists would roast us both alive for) and given that YOU can hold whatever opinions you want on birth and abortion and whatever- but you cannot apply your perceived morality around a medical procedure to other humans. You can say that makes whoever “look bad” all you want, ok, you think I give a fuck about the opinions of reactionaries who support forcing women to birth babies on top of the wars they want to send that future-kid to so that kid can shoot some random poor person in some far off land to enrich aforementioned reactionaries? I’m supposed to bow down to their opinions and their thoughts on me? No. That’s not how any of this works. Now you’ve been informed of what you support and going forward will never have the excuse of ignorance again. I’d suggest you do a little reflection. And stop lying about being a doctor online. No one cares. I’m Jesus Christ btw.
Thanks for adding some nuance that people might miss if they just read the headline. This girl broke some long established abortion laws by aborting at 7 months like you said. She is definitely in the wrong here.
At the same time, I don’t like meta for violating people’s privacy and working with law enforcement. Make law enforcement do their own jobs.
Still, I don’t feel sorry for them. These women definitely dug their own hole. You think it would be obvious to people by now to not talk about illegal things on any social media, especially meta.
You would want to force a 17 year old (or any person) to go through pregnancy and childbirth because you personally feel that’s the right thing to do? What about her rights? Does she lose them by getting impregnated? Because that’s what you are wanting to enforce.
No not at all. Just don’t get an abortion at 7 months. Literally doctors won’t do it because it’s unethical at that point. Did you even read the article? Like she took a bunch of drugs illegally to abort a fetus that could just about live outside the womb.
I am extremely pro choice, but we have a cutoff point for it that science has established to prevent cruelty.
But why is that a choice society makes for her body? I have asked that elsewhere but never get an answer from people who feel women should be forced to childbirth at a certain point: do you think people should be forced to donate organs?
I don’t know why you are bringing up forced childbirth. I already said I was pro choice, and I am even antinatalist.
She made the choice to not abort until 7 months. Thats the problem here. At a certain point the fetus is considered a human and you cross the line into murder. Medical science has determined that point to be around 5- 6 months. I believe women should have every right to abort before the point the fetus is considered conscious.
When someone is pregnant, at a certain point they have made a human, and you cant just get rid of it like that. There are other options like adoption at that point. I don’t know why you can’t see the nuance here.
It is still forced childbirth, obviously, because what else are you suggesting?
You think after a certain point in pregnancy a woman should have to birth the child so others can adopt it. After a certain point you think the woman loses the right to chose for her own and now society has the right to dictate that she has to continue being pregnant and birth the child. I think it is important to fully realize that this is the consequence of your reasoning.
The baby was nearly fully formed with a face, hands, feet, and a heartbeat that could have survived outside the womb. I implore you to go look up some photos of a 28 week fetus and I guarantee you’ll be surprised how much it looks like a normal baby.
I’m trying, but it seems that unfortunately Lemmy is yet another platform chock full of people so hard left that they downvote an opinion that 7 months pregnant is a bit too far along to have an abortion… it’s insane to me that 7 months is even a debate. I’m pro-abortion up to a point. That point starts to become concerning after the first trimester. This baby was in the third trimester…
She carried the baby to nearly full term. It had a face, hands, feet, and a heartbeat. It was a living being that could have survived outside the womb. Then she took abortion medication that wasn’t meant for pregnancies that far along. I’m not even religious and have always been pro-abortion, but there needs to be a reasonable cut-off point. In 2 and half more months she could have given it up for adoption.
The morality of having children at all is a separate point entirely. There are countless ways this could have ended or been prevented long before the fetus was viable outside the womb.
Pregnancy can never be 100 % prevented. Unless you sterilise someone. And you do not know the reasons for why this girl didn’t go through abortion earlier.
Also to the “well he only snitched on evil Stalinists” Radlibs, that’s not even true. He snitched on social democrats like you. He was never a friend of the proletariat.
However, private chat messages are only one component in a whole range of digital evidence that is likely to be used by police to prosecute illegal abortions in the United States. Investigators will be able to request access to many data sources, including digital health records, Google search history, text messages, and phone location data.
This is an interesting point. If my server is hosted in California where abortion is legal, and some police dept from Alabama wants access to my message database, can I tell them to pound sand?
Generally a search warrant needs to be issued by a local authority, and that requires the crime to be prosecutable in the place where it was issued.
So in theory, California is potentially able to refuse requests to search for things that are not illegal in California but may be illegal somewhere else.
That being said, it looks like there are specific practices in place making it easier to issue warrants for electronic data like this scenario, even across state lines.
And in this particular circumstance, the alleged offense is even illegal in California (abortion of a viable fetus), so it’s a bit of a moot point anyways. A Californian judge would have issued this warrant if a local police department requested one.
IIUC no. All of the US and some allied countries respect court orders. In general evidence can be collected worldwide as long as the crime was committed where it is a crime.
Generally, if in the same country you’d have to comply. As another example though: If your server was in Canada, and some department in Alabama wanted your data, you could tell them to pound sand. Though they may put some sort of warrant out for you for failure to comply (doesn’t matter though if you never go there)
Not sure how this is in any way an America specific thing.
The abortion was at 28 weeks, fetuses are viable outside the womb at 24 weeks, and Nebraska allows abortions until 20 weeks. They waited two whole months past the point they could have taken care of this with no fuss, one month past the point of viability.
They didn’t do this through a doctor or any safe/proper way. The pregnant woman took medicine to kill the fetus, then delivered it as a stillbirth. Her and her mother then burned the stillborn and buried it on a farm.
The mother and daughter told police they discussed it in their facebook dms, police made a formal legal request for the dms to facebook and facebook complied. They didn’t follow the golden rule of “don’t talk to police”. On top of that, the court documents indicate that the dms were part of a bunch of evidence that made the case, not the single piece of evidence that convicted them.
Honestly asking, is there something I’m missing here that would have made this turn out differently in another country? America isn’t as great as its own patriotism claims, but I see this take very often in situations that don’t seem to have much at all to do with it happening in America.
I read the article at a glance, to be fair. Iirc the pair live in one of the many states where abortion itself is now criminalised, so there was no way to deal with this “without a fuss”.
The godawful changes with Roe v Wade happened after this incident, and you can’t be charged with breaking a law by actions taken before the law was in effect/changed. So at the time, they still could have done the abortion legally.
I live in a third world country with a crumbling infrastructure, shitloads of violence and crime, a rapidly rising cost of living, crap working opportunities and corrupt government.
Americans live in a first world country where it seems more and more like most of the problems I mentioned are somehow worse there and the ones they haven’t got yet are on the horizon.
I used to think it would be my future home. Now I’m looking for literally anything other than the US/China.
Anyone happen to know if this was chat history through Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp? WhatsApp claims end to end encryption doesn’t it? I thought they say Facebook Messenger is also encrypted, but not end to end.
Probably WhatsApp but even if it isn’t we have to “assume” (certainly they’re doing it) that they’re are sniffing through every of your WhatsApp messages too.
The main point to know is if you do not encrypt it with keys generated localy on your machine and encrypt it locally, then you can not be sure it really is E2E encrypted. If a corporation does it for you with their keys they can ready anything so this kind of E2E is more or less marketing bullshit and Apple is guilty of this too.
To the people shitting on the idea of a default defederation with Meta, how about we deferedate not because it will affect us as posters but because they are evil pieces of shit?
I vote to write this reasoning at the very top, on the sticked topics when it happens. Like, literally just write “Because Facebook is evil” and don’t elaborate.
Plus, if someone shows up being a concern troll on the point, they will laser focus on it, taking the bait, we can all just block the person, a world improved.
I totally agree with your sentiment… However they don’t have a choice. They are legally obligated to turn that information over if they are served a warrant. Doing anything less is obstruction at the very least and they could be shut down and put into receivership.
The fault here is with the two individuals trusting a corporation to keep data private and to put the individuals interests ahead of the corporation. Neither is a realistic expectation.
they could have made their shitty DM system end-to-end encrypt messages by default, instead of burying that feature[0] in chat settings
or, they could have used their MASSIVE wealth and lobbying power to directly fight the warrant in court (if there even was one, they have a long history of just requiring a form ostensibly signed by any cop to turn over private data)
or they could have just lied and said they couldn’t find the data
I don’t disagree that people shouldn’t trust Facebook but saying “they don’t have a choice” is absurd
lemmy: we’ll give you a way to dm anyone on site, but please don’t use that, if you set up an app on this other open source service we’re not affiliated with (which is basically an encrypted discord) we’ll do our best to make it as seamless for you as possible. we’ll keep warning you for your own privacy.
meta/facebook: aggressively keeps you on-platform for spying purposes; literally killed xmpp a decade ago and they’ll fuckin do it again (if we let them)
google does seem to be the main culprit, but facebook still played a role as far as i’m aware. these two companies also colluded a lot so i wouldn’t trust either of them with anything federated
correction: it was both! fedbook chat also supported xmpp at first, they never federated but you could at least use it with a jabber client. then when they had enough market share they killed it.
fun semi related fact is that whatsapp, at least a couple of years ago, was using modified ejabberd (ie an xmpp server) as the backend - so arguably they helped with EEE too.
How on earth did Meta kill XMPP, where is that even from lol. They didn’t even have a standalone messaging app until 2011, which is after Google Talk dropped support for XMPP.
Yeah Google is more to blame for that.
When they defedarated it was pretty much the end of XMPP.
From what I remember, Facebook used the protocol but never opened their service for federation.
Some game-of-telephone misinformation originating from this article - though it has gone from Google killed it (which this article states), to it was a protocol that allowed Facebook and Google to communicate and then got killed, to Facebook killed it.
my understanding was that while google is the main culprit, facebook and google both played a big part in killing it. but since we’re discussing meta/facebook here, and they’re not blameless, i focused on that.
I think we should try to do better here and provide actual reasoning to our statements instead of unbridled rage, regardless of the topic, because this isn’t valuable content. I work in an adjacent industry and I believe that a lot of what people have said lately about this topic is overly sensationalized and I don’t mind discussing it, but “fuck Meta/Google because they’re evil” is subjective as hell and gets us nowhere except back to Reddit culture.
This discussion pyramid was a good post from the other day:
Fine, their comments are nonsense that aren’t based in reality and the Fediverse and it’s communities will suffer the fate of every other echo chamber shithole social media if it’s moderators don’t take action and make a conscious decision to tackle misinformation, regardless of whether or not it fits their personal bias. Better?
Saying distrust is an ad hominem is one of the takes ever, lol. And that’s what all of this boils down to, trust. Do we trust Meta with not exploiting all of our data, and turning it against us at the earliest opportunity? Do we trust Meta that they want to contribute to the fediverse, and not just hurt it because it’s a competitor?
By the same logic, blocking or banning a person instead of vetting every post and comment of theirs would also be an ad hominem. But at the end of the day, it’s just practical. Meta has a long and not so proud history of being extremely anti-consumer, and shoving that track record under the rug, trying to absolve them of responsibility and consequences for their actions, under the thought-terminating cliche of an ad hominem is neither productive nor practical.
Yes, people are mad at Meta, and yes, the distrust means their actions are scrutinized more than they otherwise would be, but that doesn’t mean that their actions aren’t actually massively anti-consumer, and that they aren’t a massive liability. In this particular case, you can make the argument that they had a legal obligation to hand over the data, had they not tried to build a walled garden with no privacy they wouldn’t have had the data to hand over to begin with.
(also, unrelated: you can embed images using the  syntax, and you can even add alt text in the brackets to help users with screen readers)
Saying distrust is an ad hominem is one of the takes ever, lol.
It is literally ad hominem, that is the definition. We aren’t discussing whether we can trust Meta or not, we’re discussing a specific topic.
By the same logic, blocking or banning a person instead of vetting every post and comment of theirs would also be an ad hominem.
It definitely is, but again, we aren’t discussing a person or an entity, we’re discussing a topic related to that person or entity. This isn’t a discussion on whether Meta should be defederated or not, frankly that’s simple, just join an instance that defederates with Meta or don’t, or build your own! There’s a ton of freedom here.
And I’m not saying ad hominem arguments can’t be used, but when an argument is entirely made up of ad hominem points while discussing a specific topic it isn’t a good argument.
Also, side note, as for trust I definitely don’t think we can trust corporate entities, but I also don’t think we can entirely trust the Fediverse as it exists already. We know there’s been an influx of bot accounts, moderation tools aren’t great yet, and every platform attracts bad actors.
(also, unrelated: you can embed images using the  syntax, and you can even add alt text in the brackets to help users with screen readers)
Thanks for the tip! Haven’t been able to get that working well here, I think I was missing the exclamation mark.
I think the simpler answer is more likely to be correct. The Fediverse isn’t big enough to really bother Meta, but ActivityPub is a convenient way to seem cool, so they’ll partially support it as long as it doesn’t cost them all that much. Once the marketing gimmick has run it’s course, they’ll drop it.
I think the same was true for XMPP. I don’t think they planned to kill XMPP and I don’t think they plan to kill ActivityPub. But they did kill XMPP, and they’ll probably kill ActivityPub by accident as well when they support it just well enough to pull people over.
So I’m not worried about some Meta conspiracy to kill ActivityPub, I’m worried about getting steamrolled on accident for a similar reason that people don’t want to share locations of where they took pictures: they don’t want the big mass of people coming to destroy something unique.
So my recommendation is to push for making everything E2E encrypted by default, and have every message cryptographically signed by the contributor. If there’s something ad companies hate it’s privacy, and that’s what we should be pursuing. I’m not sure how that works for Lemmy, but surely there’s a way for instances to manage who can decrypt messages.
I don’t even agree that Google killed it, because it’s simply a messaging protocol, it doesn’t “die”. Maybe you could try to argue that Google killed Jabber, but I used Jabber back in the early 00s, pretty much nobody else did lol, almost all IM communication was done over MSN Messenger. Google Talk brought XMPP “users” and they left when Google sunsetted Talk in favour of Hangouts. Facebook Messenger used XMPP for a time, so if anything they “revived” it (they didn’t, it was never dead), but, like all the other messaging apps, they moved to their own proprietary version to add their own features.
This is what XMPP was actually designed for, the X literally means “eXtensible”, whether it’s extended open source or into proprietary versions.
I feel like there’s a lot of anti-tech misinformation on Lemmy and it’s great to be skeptical, but honestly I think we waste a ton of time being easily ragebait’d into the wrong shit.
The Lemmy DM is imo actually quite important.
If I want to get in touch with someone about a post, nothing more. It is an easy option, and serves a purpose.
It isn’t imo meant to be used for anything else.
yep, it’s important that we have this capability, but it’s also nice that unlike other platforms that do their best to lock you in, lemmy actively pushes you toward a safer alternative
Matrix, which is pretty much an encrypted and open-source Discord clone (at least in the same fashion as Lemmy would be a Reddit clone). I personally use Element to interact with it and have a matrix.org account, but Matrix is just like the fediverse, you can choose any instance or client you want, or even host an instance yourself. In your Lemmy settings you can set up your Matrix user, right below your email address as of 0.18.1, and if you do, a new buttons saying “send secure message” will show up on your profile, next to “send message”, which will redirect people trying to message you to Matrix.
If some fuckstick from Nebraska asked me to snitch on my users for something which isn’t a crime in my state, I would simply tell them to fuck themselves, go ahead, and try to have me extradited. If my instance were bordering on a trillion dollars market cap, I’d hire a fucking lawyer.
What good is that bloated userbase if it’s just dead or abandoned accounts? If anything, they are more likely to just ctrl + C > ctrl + V their users as well as their privacy policy on their client, which doesn’t really help anyone. Besides, can facebook really be trusted to play by the rules?
That’s just straight up not true. Also I hope you are aware how Hot/Active/Top sort works. Let that decision be left up to the users instead of forcing your misinformation on to them.
yo by any chance do you got some stuff I could look into when it comes to how the fediverse works and how threads works as well? If I am wrong, I want to at least see why and also because Yeah to an extent I am kinda assuming stuff based on the comments I’m reading as well as what I personally think.
Well active and hot stuff shows new content and stuff that is being upvoted and commented on. They also tend to drop in time to be replaced by new content and so old content isn’t perpetually on the front page. So if it’s only active stuff showing up, dead accounts on threads would never show up or really affect anything, right? They’d just be buried in Meta’s huge database.
Are you saying that the individuals who run these servers and instances aren’t subject to the same laws? I read the article, and Facebook complied with a court order.
You don’t think anyone running Lemmy would do the same without access to lawyers and capital like Facebook has?
Almost all countries have similar systems for obtaining evidence. These people were criminals, they broke the law and the legal system worked as designed to bring them to “justice”. Meta was just a pawn here with very little influence.
If this story was about a murder rather than an abortion people would think that Meta did the right thing to bring the murderer to justice. As I see it the problem is that people disagree with the law and are using Meta as a scapegoat. But you don’t fix stupid laws by having corporations go vigilante. I’d rather not have billionaires coming up with their own set of laws, that is a recipe for disaster. I think we need to fix the laws, which will fix the root cause of this issue.
Also use E2EE for all private information, cryptography can’t be compelled to reveal your private data by a court order.
This is what I can agree with. We could blame Meta for encouraging people to give them data. Messenger does actually have E2EE encryption (apparently) but it is quite hidden and limited in functionality. If they made it the default this wouldn’t have been a position they ended up in, and they could have responded to the warrant with “We have no information matching this request.”
Because they use what you say to tagert ads and keep a record of who you are. That’s how they make money.
Which goes back to… You’re just a product. Stop using large platforms for personal shit. That’s their business model, how is it evil if most people know these companies rely on stealing as much information from you as they legally can AND they still use them.
And how can we be sure that all the instances federated with any instance we participate on aren’t run by law enforcement themselves? I’d be surprised if there aren’t running instances by every major investigative agency themselves.
This is why everyone should take steps to protect their privacy. You don’t have to go 0-100 overnight. Just audit yourself and do a few things now. Keep those habits up. Then audit and add a few more things, repeat.
Every interaction on Lemmy is copied to all other federated instances. There are instances all over the world with a copy of yours and my comment. They can track and use those comments for any purpose. Its both a blessing and a curse of an open federated structure.
they can also scrape them. that’s not really the point.
people can dm on lemmy, and only the two instances that host the people on either end of the dm (which may even be the same instance) store that dm. that instance may actually receive a subpoena. but all of this is heavily discouraged by the lemmy interface itself, instead prompting people to set up a matrix account instead, and matrix chats are end-to-end encrypted.
It’s not really possible as long as Lemmy is a website. E2EE works on Matrix because it’s an app, and therefore it can manage your encryption keys in ways a browser cannot do for you. (You can save things in the client, but not in a reliable enough way for something like the master key for every communication you ever had that if you lose you get locked out of all your chat history.) In the case of Lemmy, the signing keys for your federated actions are handled by the server, which is perfectly fine for 99% of what you use Lemmy for (public posts and comments), but it also means that even if they implemented E2EE for chats, the keys to decrypt the convo would be right on the same server.
That’s why Lemmy actively pushes you to set up a Matrix account, because Matrix makes better tradeoffs for the purposes of messaging, while Lemmy’s tradeoffs are more relevant to a link aggregator style social media.
But also fuck these laws and the people passing them and the people voting for the people passing them. They’re the real evil.
We have to always assume rich corporations are going to do whatever serves their best interest. It’s nature. Like a mantis is gonna bite off her mate’s head when they’re done mating. It’s up to governing factors to keep them in check. On that note, +1 to defederate. They will cannibalize or however abuse Lemmy if it will make them a penny.
This isn’t subversion, or any sort of theocratic hellscape.
Girl could have gotten an abortion 100% legally up through 20 weeks of preganancy. At 24 weeks the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. At 28 weeks she (with the assistance of her mother) took meds to kill the fetus and induce a stillbirth, commenting that she couldn’t wait to be able to wear jeans again.
She goes through natural labor to pass the stillbirth outside of any medical facility or supervision, burns the remains, and buries them on a farm. When questioned by police, she and her mother admit to using Facebook Messenger to discuss their plans.
The only thing in any way related to the romanticized fiction of some sort of downtrodden freedom seeker you’re talking about is that using encrypted communications would have prevented their discussions from being available to be subpeona’d. That said, admitting to police you even had those discussions in the first place kind of defeats the damn purpose.
That’s none of your business, though. It’s not your body. Besides, Nebraska is basically a third world country when it comes to maternal health care availability, which makes this applicable:
In low-income countries, half of newborns born at or below 32 weeks gestational age die due to a lack of medical access
Comparing any first world state to third world countries is a hell of a jump.
Generalizing statistics about third world countries to argue they apply to a first world state, no matter how shitty, poor, or ass backwards the state is… that’s an even bigger leap.
That statement is applicable to the context it was observed in, low income countries, not backwards ass first world states. Please don’t pretend otherwise. Surely you can make your point with statistics actually relevant to the context of Nebraska.
When it comes to de facto healthcare availability, especially reproductive healthcare, most red states would compare unfavourably to the majority of African countries.
That’s what happens when you have a system based on profits over access for everyone, add an insurance industry whose main focus is to make sure that as little medical treatment as possible occurs and THEN add corrupt politicians whose owner donors think that even THAT is too generous towards the poors and also an invisible section of the bible says that forcing women to give birth to unwanted children while decreasing the number of places to do so safely is holiness itself.
You are right, but you’re swimming against the tide here. 28 weeks is a fully formed child that moves and would survive of born at this point. I am all for reproductive rights but going up to 28 weeks is just irresponsible.
It was also in a state that didn’t change their abortion stance after Roe v Wade was repealed. Nothing was stopping her getting an abortion for the first 20 weeks like you said.
We don’t even know if she had an abortion. May she had a miscarriage and was just trying to avoid what’s happening now, being accused of having had an abortion.
I’ve taken the liberty of re-reading the article and have some things to point out 1. the girl was 17, a literal child, something you seemed to forget in your comment 2. You mentioned that she wanted to wear jeans again and that that was the motive, but the word ‘jeans’ wasn’t even mentioned, which makes me wonder if you’re tampering with anything in your comment coming from the article. All that considered you have a good point with some things such as in this specific situation such as them confessing to conspiracy was not a good idea, but I will still say use something end to end encrypted when doing something like this.
It might not be in this article but there are others that state that one of her messages about doing the abortion was that she couldn’t wait to wear jeans again.
She should have legally gotten an abortion in the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy. I’m all for abortion and reproductive rights, but not when it’s a viable baby already like it is at 28 weeks. She had 5 months to abort legally and easily and she didn’t. Not only did she then illegally abort it, but she burned the stillborn baby and buried it. That’s not ok.
Not that facebook doesn’t suck and we definitely shouldn’t federate with Threads. But here’s another article on this. Very late abortion where the fetus was probably viable. 17 year old was like, “I can’t wait to get this thing out of me. I can finally where jeans.” swallowed some pills to abort. Burned and buried the body on a farm. and the mom and daughter told the police about the facebook messages.
In regards to Facebook, and why you should never trust it, no. But given the headline, which is intentionally vague and seems constructed to imply this was related to the Supreme Court’s reprehensible ruling on Roe, it adds much needed context, such as the fact that this would have been illegal even before Roe was overturned, and the heinous and sociopathic comments she made. As a rule, I support a childbearing person’s bodily autonomy, but in this case? When the fetus was almost certainly viable and her reasoning for the abortion was because she wanted to wear jeans again? Fuck that.
So in this case, because you don’t like the person, you deem to have to go through pregnancy and childbirth a rightful punishment or what exactly is your reasoning?
In this case, when she had ample time to abort the pregnancy before it became viable, and didn’t choose to do so until in inconvenienced her fashion, my reasoning is that the baby (and yes, this was a baby) did not deserve to die for vanity’s sake. She should’ve given birth and put the baby up for adoption if she didn’t want it. There’s a reason third trimester pregnancies were illegal even before Roe was overturned. In the third trimester you’re no longer dealing with an amorphous clump of cells, which anti-women fanatics ridiculously argue should overrule a woman’s bodily autonomy. You’re dealing with a person.
You cannot be convicted for an action that was made illegal after you comitted it.
This is just Facebook sucking data and making money off others’ misfortune. I am sure that they didn’t hand over the chat logs for free.
“I got nothing to hide” is exactly the reason Meta is a multi-billion company. Your agenda should be “I have nothing to gain from sharing my life with them”.
You cannot be convicted for an action that was made illegal after you comitted it.
That was not my point. The point is, if the tech for mass surveillance is already in place and the laws change to more authoritarian or even just more dumb, it will be harder to escape those.
“I have nothing to gain from sharing my life with them”.
That is obvious not true, otherwise people would not be using social media.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
this is pretty disgusting even for Facebook
Not really. I mean, what did you expect from a company that’s responsible for manipulation of two major, major elections (one in the US and UK each) as well as a genocide in SEA?
And that’s just what’s known publicly.
This is right up their alley.
deleted by creator
There is no such thing as a private chat on a platform you do not own. And even if you DO own the platform it is only as private as the participants decide it to be. Hopefully people start to realize this before complete non-privacy becomes the accepted norm.
And many (most?) places in the world have single-party consent for sharing of private information.
Private doesn’t means the privacy in this case just a formal formatting. If they were not discussing in a publicly available chat then it is already considered private by the definition but yeah, 99% true.
Aside from any moral or political views, it amuses me when people do criminal acts and fail to realize police can inspect personal data like text messages, email, and social media. I think people smart enough to realize that are smart enough to avoid committing a crime in the first place. Though there are smart criminals that get away with it, you just don’t hear about them because they don’t get caught. In any case I tend to think being stupid is prerequisite to being a criminal.
Its a survivorship bias. Because only stupid criminals get caught, and those are the ones hou hear about, you assume all of them are stupid.
The only crime here is the crime against humanity of taking away a person’s agency over their own body
Yeah it’s horrible for innocent people to be deprived of life against their own will
yeah horrible to be forced into a shit life they didn’t ask for
Wow what a brave person arguing for the rights of those who can’t speak for themselves! How do you know what the fetus wants?
I can’t think of a single organism that doesn’t have a survival instinct
They had the agency to take care of this for 20 damn weeks into the pregnancy where they were at 100% legally, even disregarding the options we all have to prevent conception in the first place.
On top of that, fetuses are viable outside the womb at 24 weeks, assuming the pregnant woman doesn’t kill it at week 28 using medicine as this one did. I can’t help but feel that makes 24 weeks a pretty important deadline for when this sort of choice is more than just about the pregnant woman.
I think that misses the point of this story. The fact is, the government has complete access to your digital communications.
Now let’s run this scenario in a state with a zero abortion policy
That’s a massive oversimplification of things. Intentionally removing nuance doesn’t help people.
Even if the difference is largely academic, the police needed a warrant to get this info from Facebook. This info was not directly government owned and directly available to law enforcement.
Proper opsec and infosec is all about controlling for the threat level of your adversary. If you have nation state level adversaries then yes, you’re screwed by simple merit of doing things online where the US government has major internet relays tapped at the source. That isn’t the case here and black and white statements just muddy the waters and make proper security feel impossible to the average person. Don’t help the powers that be to make you and others feel helpless. That helps no one.
The threat level here was minor. They told the police where to look for evidence.
Beyond that, I’m not personally going to continue into the rabbit hole of the current hellscape post the godawful repeal of Roe v Wade. That situation is absolutely fucked.
As always, don’t talk with police, and don’t discuss illegal activity unencrypted or connected to your real life identity.
In the USA there’s due process required for authorities to gain access to your private data, not true in many countries.
A person has to assume anything put out there over the internet or phone network can be inspected under criminal investigation. One has to be a dumb ass not to realize that. I’ve even seen stories of criminals making social media posts showing off their robbery loot. Also the style of wearing their pants falling down. Make sure to trip and fall when running from the cops. Good thing criminals make it easy for police.
Yeah, always invoke your right to remain silent. I watch a lot of crime shows, actually my wife is more into it than me so I get roped into watching them. It baffles me how criminals will sit there and let police interrogate them until they confess. Maybe it’s because they think they can talk their way out of it, but then why confess. As a US citizen you can shut down an interview with police any time you want. But it’s good suspects are stupid like that, makes it easy for police. They have a tough job dealing with all the knuckleheads out there.
This is only the case when the data is being obtained by traditional means. As we’ve seen recently, authorities buying data from data brokers completely circumvents any sense of due process on a technicality.
Oh absolutely. Even if you are entirely innocent, the police use psycological manipulation as routine part of interrogation. They’d sometimes rather you get confused as to whether you actually may have done something wrong, and eventually admit to something you didn’t do, than to let you go as innocent. There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of “cooperating” (such a loaded and innacurate word in this context), whether you’re innocent or guilty.
Yes you can make yourself a prime suspect by talking too much, even if you’re completely innocent. If you don’t have a solid alibi and you “know too much” you’re it.
I think there used to be a lot more railroading of innocent suspects back in the day, but with modern advances in forensic technology that happens greatly less. Still happens though. You know that cliché about every convict saying he’s innocent. After the stuff I’ve seen watching these crime documentaries for years, I start to think maybe half of them are telling the truth.
You’re right, and there’s two things going on here, one group of people is debating the morality of what these people did in the first place, but the other take is platform compliance with law enforcement and more generally the government’s ability to access your data.
You’re contrasting that a warrant should not really be a concern compared with the government’s ability to perform truly invasive surveillance potentially without any warrant.
I don’t know that you really disagree with person you’re replying to, though. Yeah, if people are doing something their government classifies as illegal, talking about it on unencrypted spaces where it’s subject to a warrant is dumb.
Very few people would be alarmed when Facebook turns over data related to human traffickers. Some would. But for those who are focused on morality, would it matter if the method was, say, the NSA cracking encryption without a warrant? Or tapping communications through an encryption back door?They’d probably be more worried about admitting the evidence than whether the method should be allowed.
It’s certainly worth considering that if governments are criminalizing behavior people believe ought not to be a crime, they need to be more aware that communication security is a thing and there are methods and tools to help with that, and powers the government have to thwart it. But who the government is going after will make people care about the issue differently.
Thinking about hypotheticals where this plays out in other scenarios doesn’t seem like an oversimplification, it’s a valid consideration, at least for public awareness.
Good job victim blaming dude. This mother and daughter did absolutely nothing wrong here.
What? They had 20 weeks to do this properly with medical supervision but waited to do shit until week 28 of pregnancy, then most importantly broke rule #1: Don’t talk to the fucking police. They admitted to the police that they planned it using FB messenger. Whether the police got the DMs isn’t as relevant as the fact that when they were questioned they admitted it.
You’re still victim blaming.
The victim in question openly stated they wanted an abortion at 28 weeks so they could wear jeans again.
Please stop using the phrase “victim blaming” to abrogate the necessity for critical thought.
This isn’t some “she shouldn’t have dressed like a slut” situation.
At some point people need to be held accountable to some absolute minimum level of personal responsibility.
Let’s be honest here.
How long do you think that child would last being parented by someone who wanted their child aborted so they could wear their jeans again.
Abortions should be easily available to any and all women, in every state.
I don’t agree with their decision making length, but if abortion wasnt such a fucking touchy subject, the woman probably would have done so as soon as she found out.
Her body, her choice.
Men and politics need to get the fuck out of the way.
Men can have an opinion on the matter. We are talking about potential children here so if course everyone will have an opinion. Saying Men shouldn’t have an opinion on this matter only proved that you shouldn’t have an opinion.
Having a vagina is not a prerequisite to have an opinion on abortion.
In any case, the best argument I can think of about abortion is that the fetus seem to have a consciousness at around 24 weeks. Consciousness is what we care to protect. In my opinion, at 24 weeks, a fetus is a person worth of protection.
She literally had 20 weeks to do it legally with no problems.
And she didn’t. And mostly men around america make it a massive political issue. I’m not condoning the length of time it took her to decide.
But I’m also not conding your response saying she had x amount of time, avoiding my inquiry about the ability to not be a good parent. What’s worse? A small amount of time for a fetus, or a lifetime when the kid boils to death in the car cause mommy wanted to go shopping?
Quit wishing misery on birthed children all in the name of a life. It doesn’t work that way.
If it was her body her choice, and she had education about it, or possibly free access to birth control, this might not have been a story. Sadly, it seems America is walking backwards with women’s reproductive rights.
I’m not going to get worked up about a woman aborting her fetus for whatever reason. Make all other options more attainable and then it’s a conversation to have, but not really. If I found out my wife would have a higher than average statistical chance of dying while giving birth, she could make her choice. My preference would be, let’s just try for another and hope it doesn’t put her life at more risk.
This isn’t the case here, but how about we throw pitchforks at the penis that impregnated this young woman? It does take 2.
There are hundreds of possible reasons for why this 17 year old did not manage to go through the abortion in time. But you really really want her to be an evil murderer who did this… For what? You really think she did this because she is just an awful human being and therefore now as punishment deserves to have to go through pregnancy and childbirth?
It is her body not yours. When you get pregnant and feel the moral obligation to go through the whole process of birthing it than you can still make this decision. But it’s not yours to make or judge about because it’s the actual already living body of another person.
Why are we pretending like adoption does not exist? You’re skipping options here.
Abortion being a touchy subject (agreed that it shouldn’t be) leading to her waiting longer is pure speculation.
deleted by creator
I’ll admit you make some fair points.
This pair are completely incompetent and should absolutely never become parents/grandparents.
However the fact that police investigated, asked for chat logs from a social media provider, and are intimidating the two of them and we’re all talking about it is the entire point.
Fear. They want us to be at reach others throats on this issue.
You sound like a reasonable person. I think we can both agree that what the police are doing right now is wrong. Even at 20 weeks, which is very late in the pregnancy game, as you say, the decision for what to do with her body should have been between her and her doctor only.
We should not have courts getting involved in this crap again like it’s pre the 70s all over. Those were not good times for women.
The two of them could absolutely have been smarter about what they did. But what they did shouldn’t be receiving national attention because it should have stayed between the two of them and their doctor.
It amuses me people use anything Facebook created.
What year is it
She was 7 months pregnant. That baby is viable outside the womb in many scenarios. It’s disgusting to abort a child at that point. The local law allows abortions up to 5 months into the pregnancy (20 weeks). That’s plenty of time to make a decision, and a pretty liberal allowance. Prosecution of this mother and daughter is justified and there is nothing wrong with Meta complying with the info request.
I had yet to read the article when commenting, here’s more details:
The article:
From Motherboard (where you also can read court documents):
Right, which is exactly what I said…
Yes, I’m not arguing or anything, I forgot to mention I appreciated the added context you provided. Just wanted to further expand on it for those wanting to get more context, as it seems to be a lot of people in the thread that didn’t read the article
It’s not your decision and should not be the government’s. Only the pregnant person and their doctor matter. Possible input from their parents and/or other potential-parent of the fetus.
You’re giving away your right wingery too easily. When you call a fetus a baby, red flag, but sometimes people just use that (if the fetus is an intended pregnancy and the parent(s) plan to actually have a child, usually). So, in the interest of debate-bro “good faith,” ok.
Referring to abortion as disgusting. Well, that pretty much just ruined anything else you had to say. I bet open heart surgery or getting your arm reset after breaking can be pretty disgusting to most of us who aren’t used to such things. They’re all still medical procedures and their disgustingness or not is completely irrelevant to outsiders to the procedure. And if you’re simply disgusted at the idea of the procedure being done, that meaning, well one choose better words and two, yeah, that’s just reactionary mindset creeping in and spewing out your little fingers. At the end of the day whatever little nuggets of shit were implanted into YOUR brain as a child (such as “abortions are only valid until X arbitrarily decided date”) are irrelevant to the world and to this completely other human being seeking a medical procedure. Long story short: it’s none of your fucking business. A fetus is NOT a baby or a child and you’re purposely wrongly using the word to conflate the two. Again… right wingery…
Prosecution is not warrant for a seeking to obtain medical procedures. This isn’t the year 1647. Please fucking stop.
If you were discussing a purely rhetorical topic on “the moral and ethics of abortions and when they’re done” maybe you’d have some valid points and perhaps, because my brain was also rotted by arbitrary religious deadlines growing up, I’d be inclined to agree with hypothetical “if it were MY gf/wife, I’d want…” whatever to happen. But at the end of the day this isn’t our partner, it wasn’t our body, we aren’t doctors involved in the decision, we aren’t the person’s parent(s), we aren’t fucking Jesus or whatever. It’s not our decision to make, it’s no one’s but the person with the fetus under the care of a qualified physician. Who, btw, very well might be, and I’d assume probably was, advising towards birth and then surrendering for adoption. But it’s not their decision either. Just one single person gets that right with some important advisors along the way. We are none of those people, so, we and the government should probably fuck off forever.
And Zuck can completely fuck himself. Not even going to rant on that because corporations bending over and spreading fully for the government at the slightest hint of a request for private data has been happening for decades. They’re morally bankrupt cowards. Even protected from personal legal liability (by their corporations, which do provide that, unfortunately in most cases) they won’t even attempt to stand up for privacy rights if nothing else. Gross.
I can’t believe you wrote this long a response and tried to dunk on someone without reading the article.
It’s not a “dunk” you debate pervert. It’s informing the uninformed in a generalized fashion.
Reading is hard. School was hard. I’m sorry. It wasn’t your fault. Someone failed you along the way. I’m sorry that happened to you. If you keep reading and think really really hard, though, it might get better. I can’t promise anything 😔
This feels like satire. There’s no way someone could actually write this without laughing at how absurd it is.
yeah you clearly still haven’t read the article.
7 months is entirely viable and no doctor would recommend an abortion at 7 months barring some painful fatal disease in the fetus (am a physician myself) that’s why it was an illegal sketchy abortion. Even if the life of the mother were in danger it’d be an early delivery that would get performed, not an abortion.
This is the kind of case that the anti abortion rights folks will point to as a reason why abortion should be illegal so for so many people here to support this particular case is wild, you’re doing more harm than good.
You’re not a physician because no physician worth a grain of shit would be concerned about the fetus and not the insane overreach of government forcing the endangerment of the pregnant person’s life.
More right wingery.
If you are concerned with the fetus here in any fashion, sorry to be the first to break the news, but you have a reactionary take on this topic. I’ve been incredibly generous even (which many purists would roast us both alive for) and given that YOU can hold whatever opinions you want on birth and abortion and whatever- but you cannot apply your perceived morality around a medical procedure to other humans. You can say that makes whoever “look bad” all you want, ok, you think I give a fuck about the opinions of reactionaries who support forcing women to birth babies on top of the wars they want to send that future-kid to so that kid can shoot some random poor person in some far off land to enrich aforementioned reactionaries? I’m supposed to bow down to their opinions and their thoughts on me? No. That’s not how any of this works. Now you’ve been informed of what you support and going forward will never have the excuse of ignorance again. I’d suggest you do a little reflection. And stop lying about being a doctor online. No one cares. I’m Jesus Christ btw.
They avoided going to a hospital because they didn’t want the child, so they gave birth elsewhere. There was no doctor present to give medical advice.
The baby didn’t make it because of their negligence, so they burned and buried it.
How in the world could you defend something as gruesome as that? They’re monsters.
Thanks for adding some nuance that people might miss if they just read the headline. This girl broke some long established abortion laws by aborting at 7 months like you said. She is definitely in the wrong here.
At the same time, I don’t like meta for violating people’s privacy and working with law enforcement. Make law enforcement do their own jobs.
Still, I don’t feel sorry for them. These women definitely dug their own hole. You think it would be obvious to people by now to not talk about illegal things on any social media, especially meta.
You would want to force a 17 year old (or any person) to go through pregnancy and childbirth because you personally feel that’s the right thing to do? What about her rights? Does she lose them by getting impregnated? Because that’s what you are wanting to enforce.
No not at all. Just don’t get an abortion at 7 months. Literally doctors won’t do it because it’s unethical at that point. Did you even read the article? Like she took a bunch of drugs illegally to abort a fetus that could just about live outside the womb.
I am extremely pro choice, but we have a cutoff point for it that science has established to prevent cruelty.
But why is that a choice society makes for her body? I have asked that elsewhere but never get an answer from people who feel women should be forced to childbirth at a certain point: do you think people should be forced to donate organs?
I don’t know why you are bringing up forced childbirth. I already said I was pro choice, and I am even antinatalist.
She made the choice to not abort until 7 months. Thats the problem here. At a certain point the fetus is considered a human and you cross the line into murder. Medical science has determined that point to be around 5- 6 months. I believe women should have every right to abort before the point the fetus is considered conscious.
When someone is pregnant, at a certain point they have made a human, and you cant just get rid of it like that. There are other options like adoption at that point. I don’t know why you can’t see the nuance here.
It is still forced childbirth, obviously, because what else are you suggesting? You think after a certain point in pregnancy a woman should have to birth the child so others can adopt it. After a certain point you think the woman loses the right to chose for her own and now society has the right to dictate that she has to continue being pregnant and birth the child. I think it is important to fully realize that this is the consequence of your reasoning.
The baby was nearly fully formed with a face, hands, feet, and a heartbeat that could have survived outside the womb. I implore you to go look up some photos of a 28 week fetus and I guarantee you’ll be surprised how much it looks like a normal baby.
I’m trying, but it seems that unfortunately Lemmy is yet another platform chock full of people so hard left that they downvote an opinion that 7 months pregnant is a bit too far along to have an abortion… it’s insane to me that 7 months is even a debate. I’m pro-abortion up to a point. That point starts to become concerning after the first trimester. This baby was in the third trimester…
Also, meta was served a search warrant. They were required by law to comply.
It’s disgusting to wish on women that they should lose the rights to their own bodies that easily.
She carried the baby to nearly full term. It had a face, hands, feet, and a heartbeat. It was a living being that could have survived outside the womb. Then she took abortion medication that wasn’t meant for pregnancies that far along. I’m not even religious and have always been pro-abortion, but there needs to be a reasonable cut-off point. In 2 and half more months she could have given it up for adoption.
Why should we continue birthing children when we already have so many that are insufficiently cared for?
If you, personally, would assume responsibility for this child, great, but otherwise leave it up to the individual.
The morality of having children at all is a separate point entirely. There are countless ways this could have ended or been prevented long before the fetus was viable outside the womb.
Pregnancy can never be 100 % prevented. Unless you sterilise someone. And you do not know the reasons for why this girl didn’t go through abortion earlier.
This is what “Freedom & Family” means, apparently!
1984
Obligatory:
A racist, a snitch, a plagiarist and a rapist walk into a bar. The bartender asks: “How’s the new book coming mr. Orwell?”
Also to the “well he only snitched on evil Stalinists” Radlibs, that’s not even true. He snitched on social democrats like you. He was never a friend of the proletariat.
wha? ok?
Not you, the hypothetical person I quoted.
understandable
1984 indeed…
1684
This is an interesting point. If my server is hosted in California where abortion is legal, and some police dept from Alabama wants access to my message database, can I tell them to pound sand?
Obligatory IANAL, but…
Generally a search warrant needs to be issued by a local authority, and that requires the crime to be prosecutable in the place where it was issued.
So in theory, California is potentially able to refuse requests to search for things that are not illegal in California but may be illegal somewhere else.
That being said, it looks like there are specific practices in place making it easier to issue warrants for electronic data like this scenario, even across state lines.
And in this particular circumstance, the alleged offense is even illegal in California (abortion of a viable fetus), so it’s a bit of a moot point anyways. A Californian judge would have issued this warrant if a local police department requested one.
IIUC no. All of the US and some allied countries respect court orders. In general evidence can be collected worldwide as long as the crime was committed where it is a crime.
But IANAL.
Generally, if in the same country you’d have to comply. As another example though: If your server was in Canada, and some department in Alabama wanted your data, you could tell them to pound sand. Though they may put some sort of warrant out for you for failure to comply (doesn’t matter though if you never go there)
Jesus Christ, America.
Not sure how this is in any way an America specific thing.
The abortion was at 28 weeks, fetuses are viable outside the womb at 24 weeks, and Nebraska allows abortions until 20 weeks. They waited two whole months past the point they could have taken care of this with no fuss, one month past the point of viability.
They didn’t do this through a doctor or any safe/proper way. The pregnant woman took medicine to kill the fetus, then delivered it as a stillbirth. Her and her mother then burned the stillborn and buried it on a farm.
The mother and daughter told police they discussed it in their facebook dms, police made a formal legal request for the dms to facebook and facebook complied. They didn’t follow the golden rule of “don’t talk to police”. On top of that, the court documents indicate that the dms were part of a bunch of evidence that made the case, not the single piece of evidence that convicted them.
Honestly asking, is there something I’m missing here that would have made this turn out differently in another country? America isn’t as great as its own patriotism claims, but I see this take very often in situations that don’t seem to have much at all to do with it happening in America.
I read the article at a glance, to be fair. Iirc the pair live in one of the many states where abortion itself is now criminalised, so there was no way to deal with this “without a fuss”.
The godawful changes with Roe v Wade happened after this incident, and you can’t be charged with breaking a law by actions taken before the law was in effect/changed. So at the time, they still could have done the abortion legally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK87AKIPyZY
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=GK87AKIPyZY
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
Good bot
good bot
^this slaps
I can’t remember the last time I saw anything that made me think “I would like to go to America”.
These days it’s just another thing to add to the ever increasing list of reasons NOT to go there.
I live in a third world country with a crumbling infrastructure, shitloads of violence and crime, a rapidly rising cost of living, crap working opportunities and corrupt government.
Americans live in a first world country where it seems more and more like most of the problems I mentioned are somehow worse there and the ones they haven’t got yet are on the horizon.
I used to think it would be my future home. Now I’m looking for literally anything other than the US/China.
Anyone happen to know if this was chat history through Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp? WhatsApp claims end to end encryption doesn’t it? I thought they say Facebook Messenger is also encrypted, but not end to end.
Probably WhatsApp but even if it isn’t we have to “assume” (certainly they’re doing it) that they’re are sniffing through every of your WhatsApp messages too.
This was messenger, and before Facebook even claimed to have E2E encryption on it. Chill.
???
The main point to know is if you do not encrypt it with keys generated localy on your machine and encrypt it locally, then you can not be sure it really is E2E encrypted. If a corporation does it for you with their keys they can ready anything so this kind of E2E is more or less marketing bullshit and Apple is guilty of this too.
To the people shitting on the idea of a default defederation with Meta, how about we deferedate not because it will affect us as posters but because they are evil pieces of shit?
This. I don’t need to win, I just want Meta to lose.
General Hux!
I vote to write this reasoning at the very top, on the sticked topics when it happens. Like, literally just write “Because Facebook is evil” and don’t elaborate.
Plus, if someone shows up being a concern troll on the point, they will laser focus on it, taking the bait, we can all just block the person, a world improved.
Ya. That’s fucked. Just ruin someone’s life like that. Holy fuck.
I totally agree with your sentiment… However they don’t have a choice. They are legally obligated to turn that information over if they are served a warrant. Doing anything less is obstruction at the very least and they could be shut down and put into receivership.
The fault here is with the two individuals trusting a corporation to keep data private and to put the individuals interests ahead of the corporation. Neither is a realistic expectation.
You’re exactly right. They are legally required to turn it over when compelled. Let’s keep that mess away from the federation. It will only get worse.
Any instance owner operating out of similar jurisdiction is under the same situation.
they could have made their shitty DM system end-to-end encrypt messages by default, instead of burying that feature[0] in chat settings
or, they could have used their MASSIVE wealth and lobbying power to directly fight the warrant in court (if there even was one, they have a long history of just requiring a form ostensibly signed by any cop to turn over private data)
or they could have just lied and said they couldn’t find the data
I don’t disagree that people shouldn’t trust Facebook but saying “they don’t have a choice” is absurd
[0] https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-app/786613221989782
yeah, the difference is pretty stark:
- Mark Zuckerberg
(yes it sounds like satire but that’s a real quote)
Was it Facebook that killed xmpp or Google? Legitimately asking because I’ve always seen that blamed on Google.
XMPP was never alive lol
google does seem to be the main culprit, but facebook still played a role as far as i’m aware. these two companies also colluded a lot so i wouldn’t trust either of them with anything federated
Yeah they can both get fucked. Cheers
It was Google, they Embraced, Extended, and Extinguished it with Google Chat. Then they killed that themselves.
correction: it was both! fedbook chat also supported xmpp at first, they never federated but you could at least use it with a jabber client. then when they had enough market share they killed it.
fun semi related fact is that whatsapp, at least a couple of years ago, was using modified ejabberd (ie an xmpp server) as the backend - so arguably they helped with EEE too.
I mean I agree with Zuck on that one.
That was a quote from 13 years ago when he didn’t know how massive his enterprise would become. People change.
As for him, he became more evil.
People change, but the Zuck clearly isn’t people. My money is on time-traveling robot.
I bet lizard man personally, he just feels slimy a reptilian.
How on earth did Meta kill XMPP, where is that even from lol. They didn’t even have a standalone messaging app until 2011, which is after Google Talk dropped support for XMPP.
Yeah Google is more to blame for that. When they defedarated it was pretty much the end of XMPP. From what I remember, Facebook used the protocol but never opened their service for federation.
Some game-of-telephone misinformation originating from this article - though it has gone from Google killed it (which this article states), to it was a protocol that allowed Facebook and Google to communicate and then got killed, to Facebook killed it.
my understanding was that while google is the main culprit, facebook and google both played a big part in killing it. but since we’re discussing meta/facebook here, and they’re not blameless, i focused on that.
but yeah, fuck google too.
I think we should try to do better here and provide actual reasoning to our statements instead of unbridled rage, regardless of the topic, because this isn’t valuable content. I work in an adjacent industry and I believe that a lot of what people have said lately about this topic is overly sensationalized and I don’t mind discussing it, but “fuck Meta/Google because they’re evil” is subjective as hell and gets us nowhere except back to Reddit culture.
This discussion pyramid was a good post from the other day:
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b48a0a91-c7a3-4cc5-a117-6deceedde205.png
Your comments are “ad hominem” at best.
removed by mod
Fine, their comments are nonsense that aren’t based in reality and the Fediverse and it’s communities will suffer the fate of every other echo chamber shithole social media if it’s moderators don’t take action and make a conscious decision to tackle misinformation, regardless of whether or not it fits their personal bias. Better?
Saying distrust is an ad hominem is one of the takes ever, lol. And that’s what all of this boils down to, trust. Do we trust Meta with not exploiting all of our data, and turning it against us at the earliest opportunity? Do we trust Meta that they want to contribute to the fediverse, and not just hurt it because it’s a competitor?
By the same logic, blocking or banning a person instead of vetting every post and comment of theirs would also be an ad hominem. But at the end of the day, it’s just practical. Meta has a long and not so proud history of being extremely anti-consumer, and shoving that track record under the rug, trying to absolve them of responsibility and consequences for their actions, under the thought-terminating cliche of an ad hominem is neither productive nor practical.
Yes, people are mad at Meta, and yes, the distrust means their actions are scrutinized more than they otherwise would be, but that doesn’t mean that their actions aren’t actually massively anti-consumer, and that they aren’t a massive liability. In this particular case, you can make the argument that they had a legal obligation to hand over the data, had they not tried to build a walled garden with no privacy they wouldn’t have had the data to hand over to begin with.
(also, unrelated: you can embed images using the
syntax, and you can even add alt text in the brackets to help users with screen readers)It is literally ad hominem, that is the definition. We aren’t discussing whether we can trust Meta or not, we’re discussing a specific topic.
It definitely is, but again, we aren’t discussing a person or an entity, we’re discussing a topic related to that person or entity. This isn’t a discussion on whether Meta should be defederated or not, frankly that’s simple, just join an instance that defederates with Meta or don’t, or build your own! There’s a ton of freedom here.
And I’m not saying ad hominem arguments can’t be used, but when an argument is entirely made up of ad hominem points while discussing a specific topic it isn’t a good argument.
Also, side note, as for trust I definitely don’t think we can trust corporate entities, but I also don’t think we can entirely trust the Fediverse as it exists already. We know there’s been an influx of bot accounts, moderation tools aren’t great yet, and every platform attracts bad actors.
Thanks for the tip! Haven’t been able to get that working well here, I think I was missing the exclamation mark.
I think the simpler answer is more likely to be correct. The Fediverse isn’t big enough to really bother Meta, but ActivityPub is a convenient way to seem cool, so they’ll partially support it as long as it doesn’t cost them all that much. Once the marketing gimmick has run it’s course, they’ll drop it.
I think the same was true for XMPP. I don’t think they planned to kill XMPP and I don’t think they plan to kill ActivityPub. But they did kill XMPP, and they’ll probably kill ActivityPub by accident as well when they support it just well enough to pull people over.
So I’m not worried about some Meta conspiracy to kill ActivityPub, I’m worried about getting steamrolled on accident for a similar reason that people don’t want to share locations of where they took pictures: they don’t want the big mass of people coming to destroy something unique.
So my recommendation is to push for making everything E2E encrypted by default, and have every message cryptographically signed by the contributor. If there’s something ad companies hate it’s privacy, and that’s what we should be pursuing. I’m not sure how that works for Lemmy, but surely there’s a way for instances to manage who can decrypt messages.
in a thread where we’re discussing how meta helped religiofascists violate someone’s human rights “meta is evil” is a summary, not an ad hominem
That’s literally nowhere in this chain of comments.
That’s true. A lot of Reddit culture is cringe as well
I don’t even agree that Google killed it, because it’s simply a messaging protocol, it doesn’t “die”. Maybe you could try to argue that Google killed Jabber, but I used Jabber back in the early 00s, pretty much nobody else did lol, almost all IM communication was done over MSN Messenger. Google Talk brought XMPP “users” and they left when Google sunsetted Talk in favour of Hangouts. Facebook Messenger used XMPP for a time, so if anything they “revived” it (they didn’t, it was never dead), but, like all the other messaging apps, they moved to their own proprietary version to add their own features.
This is what XMPP was actually designed for, the X literally means “eXtensible”, whether it’s extended open source or into proprietary versions.
I feel like there’s a lot of anti-tech misinformation on Lemmy and it’s great to be skeptical, but honestly I think we waste a ton of time being easily ragebait’d into the wrong shit.
Discord killed Compuserve!
Video killed the radio star!
You bastards!
This was Google/Alphabet.
The Lemmy DM is imo actually quite important. If I want to get in touch with someone about a post, nothing more. It is an easy option, and serves a purpose. It isn’t imo meant to be used for anything else.
yep, it’s important that we have this capability, but it’s also nice that unlike other platforms that do their best to lock you in, lemmy actively pushes you toward a safer alternative
What’s the name of that safer alternative?
https://matrix.org/
A mail laden swallow.
Matrix, which is pretty much an encrypted and open-source Discord clone (at least in the same fashion as Lemmy would be a Reddit clone). I personally use Element to interact with it and have a matrix.org account, but Matrix is just like the fediverse, you can choose any instance or client you want, or even host an instance yourself. In your Lemmy settings you can set up your Matrix user, right below your email address as of 0.18.1, and if you do, a new buttons saying “send secure message” will show up on your profile, next to “send message”, which will redirect people trying to message you to Matrix.
And even if what I do is relatively tame, I want others to be protected from the wolf at the door.
Any Lemmy instance would have given over the same information in this case. Meta was complying with a valid, legal search warrant.
If some fuckstick from Nebraska asked me to snitch on my users for something which isn’t a crime in my state, I would simply tell them to fuck themselves, go ahead, and try to have me extradited. If my instance were bordering on a trillion dollars market cap, I’d hire a fucking lawyer.
You sound tough.
No you wouldn’t.
I think we’re realizing more and more any corporate-operated platform is luring us in to sell to us and sell us.
Because it will bring more people to the fedi while bringing a ton more content, support and development. How are people this blind still?
Give the choice to the users and don’t decide what you think is best for them.
What good is that bloated userbase if it’s just dead or abandoned accounts? If anything, they are more likely to just ctrl + C > ctrl + V their users as well as their privacy policy on their client, which doesn’t really help anyone. Besides, can facebook really be trusted to play by the rules?
That’s just straight up not true. Also I hope you are aware how Hot/Active/Top sort works. Let that decision be left up to the users instead of forcing your misinformation on to them.
yo by any chance do you got some stuff I could look into when it comes to how the fediverse works and how threads works as well? If I am wrong, I want to at least see why and also because Yeah to an extent I am kinda assuming stuff based on the comments I’m reading as well as what I personally think.
Well active and hot stuff shows new content and stuff that is being upvoted and commented on. They also tend to drop in time to be replaced by new content and so old content isn’t perpetually on the front page. So if it’s only active stuff showing up, dead accounts on threads would never show up or really affect anything, right? They’d just be buried in Meta’s huge database.
Are you saying that the individuals who run these servers and instances aren’t subject to the same laws? I read the article, and Facebook complied with a court order.
You don’t think anyone running Lemmy would do the same without access to lawyers and capital like Facebook has?
Do you have to run your lemmy instance in the US?
Maybe do it in a less backward place
Almost all countries have similar systems for obtaining evidence. These people were criminals, they broke the law and the legal system worked as designed to bring them to “justice”. Meta was just a pawn here with very little influence.
If this story was about a murder rather than an abortion people would think that Meta did the right thing to bring the murderer to justice. As I see it the problem is that people disagree with the law and are using Meta as a scapegoat. But you don’t fix stupid laws by having corporations go vigilante. I’d rather not have billionaires coming up with their own set of laws, that is a recipe for disaster. I think we need to fix the laws, which will fix the root cause of this issue.
Also use E2EE for all private information, cryptography can’t be compelled to reveal your private data by a court order.
Do you think people who collaborated with dictatorial regimes should be excused? Because they followed the law?
Why didnt Meta implant E2EE on their private chat service then?
This is what I can agree with. We could blame Meta for encouraging people to give them data. Messenger does actually have E2EE encryption (apparently) but it is quite hidden and limited in functionality. If they made it the default this wouldn’t have been a position they ended up in, and they could have responded to the warrant with “We have no information matching this request.”
If they truly encrypted all chats, they would lose their value to them since its unreadable to meta as well.
Because they use what you say to tagert ads and keep a record of who you are. That’s how they make money.
Which goes back to… You’re just a product. Stop using large platforms for personal shit. That’s their business model, how is it evil if most people know these companies rely on stealing as much information from you as they legally can AND they still use them.
Not disagreeing with you there.
And how can we be sure that all the instances federated with any instance we participate on aren’t run by law enforcement themselves? I’d be surprised if there aren’t running instances by every major investigative agency themselves.
This is why everyone should take steps to protect their privacy. You don’t have to go 0-100 overnight. Just audit yourself and do a few things now. Keep those habits up. Then audit and add a few more things, repeat.
I need to do this myself, I’ve been slipping
Every interaction on Lemmy is copied to all other federated instances. There are instances all over the world with a copy of yours and my comment. They can track and use those comments for any purpose. Its both a blessing and a curse of an open federated structure.
Its a social platfrom. Dont use it for personal communications.
they can also scrape them. that’s not really the point.
people can dm on lemmy, and only the two instances that host the people on either end of the dm (which may even be the same instance) store that dm. that instance may actually receive a subpoena. but all of this is heavily discouraged by the lemmy interface itself, instead prompting people to set up a matrix account instead, and matrix chats are end-to-end encrypted.
Lemmy promotes using Matrix, which is a separate service, so instance admins don’t need to be in the business of hosting private conversations.
Matrix is end-to-end encrypted so even the admins of your Matrix server could not provide your chats to law enforcement.
I wish Lemmy was as well. Ah well.
It’s not really possible as long as Lemmy is a website. E2EE works on Matrix because it’s an app, and therefore it can manage your encryption keys in ways a browser cannot do for you. (You can save things in the client, but not in a reliable enough way for something like the master key for every communication you ever had that if you lose you get locked out of all your chat history.) In the case of Lemmy, the signing keys for your federated actions are handled by the server, which is perfectly fine for 99% of what you use Lemmy for (public posts and comments), but it also means that even if they implemented E2EE for chats, the keys to decrypt the convo would be right on the same server.
That’s why Lemmy actively pushes you to set up a Matrix account, because Matrix makes better tradeoffs for the purposes of messaging, while Lemmy’s tradeoffs are more relevant to a link aggregator style social media.
Complying with the law is less of an issue than keeping that data accessible in the first place.
But also fuck these laws and the people passing them and the people voting for the people passing them. They’re the real evil.
We have to always assume rich corporations are going to do whatever serves their best interest. It’s nature. Like a mantis is gonna bite off her mate’s head when they’re done mating. It’s up to governing factors to keep them in check. On that note, +1 to defederate. They will cannibalize or however abuse Lemmy if it will make them a penny.
Remember folks, when subverting a theocratic hellscape, use something encrypted.
This isn’t subversion, or any sort of theocratic hellscape.
Girl could have gotten an abortion 100% legally up through 20 weeks of preganancy. At 24 weeks the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. At 28 weeks she (with the assistance of her mother) took meds to kill the fetus and induce a stillbirth, commenting that she couldn’t wait to be able to wear jeans again.
She goes through natural labor to pass the stillbirth outside of any medical facility or supervision, burns the remains, and buries them on a farm. When questioned by police, she and her mother admit to using Facebook Messenger to discuss their plans.
The only thing in any way related to the romanticized fiction of some sort of downtrodden freedom seeker you’re talking about is that using encrypted communications would have prevented their discussions from being available to be subpeona’d. That said, admitting to police you even had those discussions in the first place kind of defeats the damn purpose.
Allowing her to just get an abortion would have avoided this entire situation in the first place.
Eh 28 weeks seems kind of late for an abortion though.
That’s none of your business, though. It’s not your body. Besides, Nebraska is basically a third world country when it comes to maternal health care availability, which makes this applicable:
Comparing any first world state to third world countries is a hell of a jump.
Generalizing statistics about third world countries to argue they apply to a first world state, no matter how shitty, poor, or ass backwards the state is… that’s an even bigger leap.
That statement is applicable to the context it was observed in, low income countries, not backwards ass first world states. Please don’t pretend otherwise. Surely you can make your point with statistics actually relevant to the context of Nebraska.
When it comes to de facto healthcare availability, especially reproductive healthcare, most red states would compare unfavourably to the majority of African countries.
That’s what happens when you have a system based on profits over access for everyone, add an insurance industry whose main focus is to make sure that as little medical treatment as possible occurs and THEN add corrupt politicians whose owner donors think that even THAT is too generous towards the poors and also an invisible section of the bible says that forcing women to give birth to unwanted children while decreasing the number of places to do so safely is holiness itself.
The USA has infant mortality rates that would make most the neutral world (ie “third-world countries”) consider sending aid.
You are right, but you’re swimming against the tide here. 28 weeks is a fully formed child that moves and would survive of born at this point. I am all for reproductive rights but going up to 28 weeks is just irresponsible.
I think I’m missing something here. She was allowed to just get an abortion, for 20 weeks. This was all before the godawful Roe v Wade repeal.
It was also in a state that didn’t change their abortion stance after Roe v Wade was repealed. Nothing was stopping her getting an abortion for the first 20 weeks like you said.
We don’t even know if she had an abortion. May she had a miscarriage and was just trying to avoid what’s happening now, being accused of having had an abortion.
Now that sounds a lot like theocratic hellscape…
She took abortion drugs…
I’ve taken the liberty of re-reading the article and have some things to point out 1. the girl was 17, a literal child, something you seemed to forget in your comment 2. You mentioned that she wanted to wear jeans again and that that was the motive, but the word ‘jeans’ wasn’t even mentioned, which makes me wonder if you’re tampering with anything in your comment coming from the article. All that considered you have a good point with some things such as in this specific situation such as them confessing to conspiracy was not a good idea, but I will still say use something end to end encrypted when doing something like this.
It might not be in this article but there are others that state that one of her messages about doing the abortion was that she couldn’t wait to wear jeans again.
She should have legally gotten an abortion in the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy. I’m all for abortion and reproductive rights, but not when it’s a viable baby already like it is at 28 weeks. She had 5 months to abort legally and easily and she didn’t. Not only did she then illegally abort it, but she burned the stillborn baby and buried it. That’s not ok.
Where was that in the article? I missed it.
This is really interesting (and awful) context.
This isn’t a simple “my body my choice” type situation.
Facebook doesn’t use e2e.
There is a private chat e2e feature, but then your chats don’t show up on PC.
Not that facebook doesn’t suck and we definitely shouldn’t federate with Threads. But here’s another article on this. Very late abortion where the fetus was probably viable. 17 year old was like, “I can’t wait to get this thing out of me. I can finally where jeans.” swallowed some pills to abort. Burned and buried the body on a farm. and the mom and daughter told the police about the facebook messages.
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/10/1116716749/a-nebraska-woman-is-charged-with-helping-her-daughter-have-an-abortion
Yep. I’m pro-abortion rights, but this was just murder.
That article doesn’t really change anything.
In regards to Facebook, and why you should never trust it, no. But given the headline, which is intentionally vague and seems constructed to imply this was related to the Supreme Court’s reprehensible ruling on Roe, it adds much needed context, such as the fact that this would have been illegal even before Roe was overturned, and the heinous and sociopathic comments she made. As a rule, I support a childbearing person’s bodily autonomy, but in this case? When the fetus was almost certainly viable and her reasoning for the abortion was because she wanted to wear jeans again? Fuck that.
So in this case, because you don’t like the person, you deem to have to go through pregnancy and childbirth a rightful punishment or what exactly is your reasoning?
In this case, when she had ample time to abort the pregnancy before it became viable, and didn’t choose to do so until in inconvenienced her fashion, my reasoning is that the baby (and yes, this was a baby) did not deserve to die for vanity’s sake. She should’ve given birth and put the baby up for adoption if she didn’t want it. There’s a reason third trimester pregnancies were illegal even before Roe was overturned. In the third trimester you’re no longer dealing with an amorphous clump of cells, which anti-women fanatics ridiculously argue should overrule a woman’s bodily autonomy. You’re dealing with a person.
So not the best case to argue all the things, but I suppos yet another reminder not to trust big tech with our sensitive information.
That’s messed up
If you have nothing to hide… but then they just change the laws, now you are a criminal and they already have handy tools in place to convict you.
You cannot be convicted for an action that was made illegal after you comitted it. This is just Facebook sucking data and making money off others’ misfortune. I am sure that they didn’t hand over the chat logs for free. “I got nothing to hide” is exactly the reason Meta is a multi-billion company. Your agenda should be “I have nothing to gain from sharing my life with them”.
That was not my point. The point is, if the tech for mass surveillance is already in place and the laws change to more authoritarian or even just more dumb, it will be harder to escape those.
That is obvious not true, otherwise people would not be using social media.
They handed over the chat logs in response to a court order to do so. The gov’t didn’t pay them. They forced them.
Serious clickbait bs, the one time FB didn’t do anything slimy, at least not by FB standards of slimy