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.
Just yesterday here on Lemmy, I mentioned the dangers of violating privacy, and some commenters went on about “what dangers?” Implying there were none…
At this point, they’ll just say “yeah, but these people did a crime. I don’t do crimes so I have nothing to worry about”. The problem with that mentality, I would hope, doesn’t need to be stated.
Also, there’s no general agreement or scientific pointing of where life and consciousness is started on a fetus so, if the government job is to conserve the life of a individual, a fetus life still matters and shouldn’t be taken by neither the parents or anyone else.
Brazil (ironically enough) has a good constitution about about abortion where’s it is strictly prohibited unless some cases apply like: the baby has developed no brain, the baby has originated from a sexual assault case or the process of giving birth or the pregnancy itself represents a risk of death for the mother. It is simple, states that life’s have the same values as well as showing the individual rights matter.
You’re joking, right? First, abortions aren’t mentioned in the Brazilian constitution - you’d have to look at specific legal codices, such as the Civil Code or the Penal Code. Second, that’s the bare minimum, not “pretty good”.
The objective is supposed to be to find the situations where abortion would be fair a fair trade-off of lives and rights, not to try to speedrun the abortion rank; it makes no sense you’re saying it is bare minimum when the objective is to reduce it as it is inherently bad.
Why do you think a life created by sexual assault is less valuable than a life created otherwise? Isn’t the resulting life the same?
Thinking this through might help you understand the tradeoffs behind most abortions. Pregnancy is dangerous, childbirth is dangerous, parenting is incredibly difficult.
A child could push a family into poverty and devastate siblings’ futures. How do you evaluate the harm caused by that against the harm caused by being forced to carry a child produced by sexual assault?
It is not less valuable but the way it was created was against the individual rights of the mother.
I agree abortion laws are about trade-offs as I showed in my example and that’s why abortion shouldn’t be legal in the cases I stated. Abortion shouldn’t be legal for anyone cause, if it was in a consensual relationship, the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy.
The only lives that are less valuable are those which deliberately risk or take way the others’ lives.
The only lives that are less valuable are those which deliberately risk or take way the others’ lives.
By choosing to be alive, you’re impacting all present and future generations, causing the deaths of potentially billions of humans and countless other animals. Do you see how your attempted distinction doesn’t actually exist?
Which often means shoving them into massively underfunded institutions, that are full of corruption and abuse, making it a less than ideal alternative.
This is the perfect example of why you should be worried. Because your government can turn into a fascist dictatorship at any time and you ain’t getting that data back.
Reading comprehension is hard, so I’ll help you out.
This [event mentioned on the news] is the perfect example of why you should be worried. Because your government can [i.e. has the potential to] turn into a fascist dictatorship at any time [which is unrelated to this specific piece of news, being a hypothetical scenario] and you ain’t getting that data back.
I can read just fine, I’m just wondering how you correlate this with the possibility of the government turning into a fascist dictatorship. They’re 2 completely unrelated things, that’s why I’m confused to why you put them together. You even literally say it’s unrelated to this piece of news…
Are you being serious, or just being a pitiful basement troll yourself?
You’re saying because they did thing A it means you should be wary because thing Z might happen, even though things A and Z have literally nothing to do with each other nor does A happening give any likelihood of Z happening.
I agree with you, but I don’t think I could explicitly state what’s wrong with that mentality. Can you humor me and state it?
Edit: can someone else take a shot at it? Tge parent comment is essentially saying “people will counter with X, but everyone knows that doesn’t make sense”. It’s clear that something is wrong with that mentality, but it obviously would have a very real benefit of stating it’s flaws since the whole premise of this is that some people don’t know what’s wrong with that mentality.
The obvious, unspoken part is: what is legal now isn’t guaranteed to be legal two seconds in the future, and likewise to what is illegal. The law gives you no guarantee of being ethical nor moral, it’s simply a collection of behaviors either sanctioned or unsanctioned by the State.
As a clear example, you may tell me how much you love breathing in fresh air. If, tomorrow, breathing fresh air is made illegal, you’ve just shared with me a confession to a crime.
I guess that can also be extended to things that can accidentally be suspicious. Imagine if Colonel Mustard, who “doesn’t have anything to hide”, let the police search their trunk and found a broken candle stick. Even though he wasn’t being searched for that in particular, now he’s a suspect in Mrs. Peacock’s murder at the gazebo (Clue reference).
I remember that from Don’t Take to The Police. Since gotchas I can think of is touching an eagle feather lying on the ground (endangered animals plus a market for poachers). Point being, that it’s essentially impossible to say with certainty that you’ve broken no law.
The complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just what particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation.
Stephen G. Breyer, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent
It’s used around 4:40 in the Don’t Take To The Police video.
I would like to quote a Hungarian movie classic from 1969 (it was sitting in a box for a decade until it somehow got past the censorship):
Mutasson nekem egyetlen embert ebben a tetves országban, akire ha kell, 5 perc alatt nem bizonyítom rá, hogy bűnös! Magára is, magamra is, mindenkire!
Show me a single person in this flea-ridden country who if needed, I can’t prove in 5 minutes that they are guilty! You, me, everyone!
Other great quotes from the same movie:
Ahol nem vagyunk mi, ott az ellenség.
Where we are not, there is the enemy.
Ezeken lovagol maga? Amit a vaksi szemével lát? A süket fülével hall? A tompa agyával gondol? Azt hiszi, fölér az a mi nagy céljaink igazságához?!
Are you hung up on these things? What you see with your blind eyes? What you hear with your deaf ears? What you think with your blunt mind? Do you believe these are comparable to the truth of our great cause?
Just if you thought that these people are not the same as the commies were way back when. Authoritarians tend to be alike.
Ok, that’s absolutely vile and reprehensible. But that’s not actually related to what occurred in this instance. The suspects told the police that they discussed breaking the law using FB messenger. Police made a legal search warrant to collect that data from Facebook. Facebook complied.
Capitalism or anti-abortionism doesn’t really enter the situation.
First off, capitalist power structures invented police - which means that everything police does is tied up with capitalism straight off the bat.
Second, just because something has been declared illegal does not make that thing immoral - and police doing something that is legal does not make the police any less inherently immoral. The fact that the police is doing the patriarchy’s bidding by policing women’s bodies in this way is about as immoral as it gets.
Third, you could argue that the women in question shouldn’t have admitted this information to the police in the first place - but that ignores the conditions under which these women were probably interrogated.
Fourth, capitalist institutions will inevitably always side with the power structures that protect the status quo - it doesn’t matter how many “Woman’s Day” marketing they put up… at the end of the day, they will side with the patriarchy and enable it’s violence - as you can see with the link I provided to you in my first response.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😔
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
One thing I hate is while I dont trsut metas encryotion, it isnt even a default which at this point in American history is just irresonabile and reckless. It sucks we can’t teach about open source in schools.
Yeah but most non tech people don’t know what that or end to end encryption is cause schools didnt teach this stuff. and likely never will without causing end to end encryption to get banned
Regardless of what you think about abortion laws people just gotta come to terms with the fact that your phone and computer are not reliable partners in crime
I mean yeah it should but you gotta follow the old saying “don’t write when you can speak, don’t speak when you can nod, don’t nod if you can wink” or whatever. You have an expectation of privacy when sending physical mail for example, but it’s still a bad idea to put a crime in writing if you don’t have to. Even if it can’t legally be used as evidence it can be read. We’ve seen that with ‘parallel construction’ from law enforcement
Sorry, i don’t find it anymore in all the white noise about france being anti encryption. It was about a group of teens being detained on the grounds of mere suspection for using and promoting encrypted messaging, online privacy, using tor and so on, painting that fact as a crime.
Someone feel free to refresh me but I think it’s Samsung in the US you can only disable Facebook not delete it and it still calls home even if disabled. Probably other manufacturers as well. If you roll with android over apple 100% get a pixel. Yes fuck Google as well but they don’t have any 3rd party shit collecting your data unless you install it.
I believe thats just part of the service provider bloatware packages that come preinstalled into the OS. You have to root the phone and do a clean install without the bloatware to get rid of it. Its annoying as hell and I think its stupid that these companies can preinstall anything on these phones.
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
Just yesterday here on Lemmy, I mentioned the dangers of violating privacy, and some commenters went on about “what dangers?” Implying there were none…
Is it not enough to gesture broadly?
At this point, they’ll just say “yeah, but these people did a crime. I don’t do crimes so I have nothing to worry about”. The problem with that mentality, I would hope, doesn’t need to be stated.
I stopped trying to change the world.
deleted by creator
I agree that these people did a crime.
I just don’t think their crime should be illegal.
If this was about murdering a full-grown adult and not aborting a fetus, nobody would be talking about privacy concerns. Guaranteed.
Also, there’s no general agreement or scientific pointing of where life and consciousness is started on a fetus so, if the government job is to conserve the life of a individual, a fetus life still matters and shouldn’t be taken by neither the parents or anyone else.
Brazil (ironically enough) has a good constitution about about abortion where’s it is strictly prohibited unless some cases apply like: the baby has developed no brain, the baby has originated from a sexual assault case or the process of giving birth or the pregnancy itself represents a risk of death for the mother. It is simple, states that life’s have the same values as well as showing the individual rights matter.
You’re joking, right? First, abortions aren’t mentioned in the Brazilian constitution - you’d have to look at specific legal codices, such as the Civil Code or the Penal Code. Second, that’s the bare minimum, not “pretty good”.
The objective is supposed to be to find the situations where abortion would be fair a fair trade-off of lives and rights, not to try to speedrun the abortion rank; it makes no sense you’re saying it is bare minimum when the objective is to reduce it as it is inherently bad.
Why do you think a life created by sexual assault is less valuable than a life created otherwise? Isn’t the resulting life the same?
Thinking this through might help you understand the tradeoffs behind most abortions. Pregnancy is dangerous, childbirth is dangerous, parenting is incredibly difficult.
A child could push a family into poverty and devastate siblings’ futures. How do you evaluate the harm caused by that against the harm caused by being forced to carry a child produced by sexual assault?
It is not less valuable but the way it was created was against the individual rights of the mother.
I agree abortion laws are about trade-offs as I showed in my example and that’s why abortion shouldn’t be legal in the cases I stated. Abortion shouldn’t be legal for anyone cause, if it was in a consensual relationship, the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy.
The only lives that are less valuable are those which deliberately risk or take way the others’ lives.
Also, thanks for being respectful.
By choosing to be alive, you’re impacting all present and future generations, causing the deaths of potentially billions of humans and countless other animals. Do you see how your attempted distinction doesn’t actually exist?
I guess you don’t know much about numbers.
A child can also be put up for adoption btw.
If you care so much, go ahead and adopt a child.
Nah I’m ok. If she wanted an abortion she should have gotten one in the 20 weeks where she’s legally allowed to. Doesn’t seem like a hard thing to do.
Which often means shoving them into massively underfunded institutions, that are full of corruption and abuse, making it a less than ideal alternative.
Less ideal than being dead?
For what it’s worth, the fetus was viable outside the womb 4 weeks before they did this. Viable at 24 weeks, aborted at 28. Pretty fucked up imo
We’d still be talking about the privacy part because it’d be still more concerning than the death of one random dude.
Would you be ok with someone aborting a 39 week old fetus? What about a 40 week old fetus? What about during labour?
Slippery slope fallacy detected
How do you know they committed a crime. After reading the article I don’t know. It looks totally as if it’s possible that she just had a miscarriage.
Maybe there’s just a prosecutor eager for convictions.
Maybe she was trying do avoid exactly this kind of trouble.
She took abortion drugs…
This is the perfect example of why you should be worried. Because your government can turn into a fascist dictatorship at any time and you ain’t getting that data back.
How is this an example of the government turning into a “fascist dictatorship”?
Reading comprehension is hard, so I’ll help you out.
I can read just fine, I’m just wondering how you correlate this with the possibility of the government turning into a fascist dictatorship. They’re 2 completely unrelated things, that’s why I’m confused to why you put them together. You even literally say it’s unrelated to this piece of news…
Are you serious, or being a pitiful basement troll?
Action is not illegal → Service provider has unprivateable data on action → Action becomes illegal → You now have confessed to your crime
Can’t make it much more obvious
Are you being serious, or just being a pitiful basement troll yourself?
You’re saying because they did thing A it means you should be wary because thing Z might happen, even though things A and Z have literally nothing to do with each other nor does A happening give any likelihood of Z happening.
I thought ex post facto laws were forbidden.
I agree with you, but I don’t think I could explicitly state what’s wrong with that mentality. Can you humor me and state it?
Edit: can someone else take a shot at it? Tge parent comment is essentially saying “people will counter with X, but everyone knows that doesn’t make sense”. It’s clear that something is wrong with that mentality, but it obviously would have a very real benefit of stating it’s flaws since the whole premise of this is that some people don’t know what’s wrong with that mentality.
The obvious, unspoken part is: what is legal now isn’t guaranteed to be legal two seconds in the future, and likewise to what is illegal. The law gives you no guarantee of being ethical nor moral, it’s simply a collection of behaviors either sanctioned or unsanctioned by the State.
As a clear example, you may tell me how much you love breathing in fresh air. If, tomorrow, breathing fresh air is made illegal, you’ve just shared with me a confession to a crime.
Thank you for actually doing this.
I guess that can also be extended to things that can accidentally be suspicious. Imagine if Colonel Mustard, who “doesn’t have anything to hide”, let the police search their trunk and found a broken candle stick. Even though he wasn’t being searched for that in particular, now he’s a suspect in Mrs. Peacock’s murder at the gazebo (Clue reference).
No one has anything to hide, until they do
I once heard that “Anyone can be charged with a crime if they can be watched closely enough for long enough.”
I remember that from Don’t Take to The Police. Since gotchas I can think of is touching an eagle feather lying on the ground (endangered animals plus a market for poachers). Point being, that it’s essentially impossible to say with certainty that you’ve broken no law.
Found the quote:
It’s used around 4:40 in the Don’t Take To The Police video.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/d-7o9xYp7eE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good bot!
And there are so many laws that it is impossible to know all the laws that apply in any given moment. Basically, you always have -something- to hide.
I would like to quote a Hungarian movie classic from 1969 (it was sitting in a box for a decade until it somehow got past the censorship):
Other great quotes from the same movie:
Just if you thought that these people are not the same as the commies were way back when. Authoritarians tend to be alike.
I’m committing a crime right now, pairing this red wine with this halibut.
“private chat history” on Facebook…
Facebook doesn’t use e2e.
There is a private chat e2e feature, but then your chats don’t show up on PC.
💀
The trouple Meta-GOP-Elon.
So… just capitalists acting like capitalists. Who coulda thunk it?
Huh? This is a company responding to a legal warrant for evidence disclosure in an area it operates in. What does capitalosm have to do with it?
So you don’t know?
Ok, that’s absolutely vile and reprehensible. But that’s not actually related to what occurred in this instance. The suspects told the police that they discussed breaking the law using FB messenger. Police made a legal search warrant to collect that data from Facebook. Facebook complied.
Capitalism or anti-abortionism doesn’t really enter the situation.
First off, capitalist power structures invented police - which means that everything police does is tied up with capitalism straight off the bat.
Second, just because something has been declared illegal does not make that thing immoral - and police doing something that is legal does not make the police any less inherently immoral. The fact that the police is doing the patriarchy’s bidding by policing women’s bodies in this way is about as immoral as it gets.
Third, you could argue that the women in question shouldn’t have admitted this information to the police in the first place - but that ignores the conditions under which these women were probably interrogated.
Fourth, capitalist institutions will inevitably always side with the power structures that protect the status quo - it doesn’t matter how many “Woman’s Day” marketing they put up… at the end of the day, they will side with the patriarchy and enable it’s violence - as you can see with the link I provided to you in my first response.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 😔
yeah you clearly still haven’t read the article.
This feels like satire. There’s no way someone could actually write this without laughing at how absurd it is.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
Also, meta was served a search warrant. They were required by law to comply.
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 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.
This is what “Freedom & Family” means, apparently!
1984
1984 indeed…
1684
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
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?
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)
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.
One thing I hate is while I dont trsut metas encryotion, it isnt even a default which at this point in American history is just irresonabile and reckless. It sucks we can’t teach about open source in schools.
And if you make enough spelling errors, your post essentially encrypts itself! :D
*dies from insults
All these two needed to do was install a different app. Signal was just sitting there waiting for them to use, for free.
Yeah but most non tech people don’t know what that or end to end encryption is cause schools didnt teach this stuff. and likely never will without causing end to end encryption to get banned
Regardless of what you think about abortion laws people just gotta come to terms with the fact that your phone and computer are not reliable partners in crime
They should be? I mean, not just for the crime, but in general privacy should be the default.
I mean yeah it should but you gotta follow the old saying “don’t write when you can speak, don’t speak when you can nod, don’t nod if you can wink” or whatever. You have an expectation of privacy when sending physical mail for example, but it’s still a bad idea to put a crime in writing if you don’t have to. Even if it can’t legally be used as evidence it can be read. We’ve seen that with ‘parallel construction’ from law enforcement
The Klingons of Star Trek also have a saying: If you do not wish a thing heard, do not say it.
Wait, lemme write that down
Lemmy write that down
I’m taking notes, Jim. I just can’t write any faster!
Wicked. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat
I’ve actually never heard that saying. I like it a lot.
It’s one of those quotes with a lot of different versions floating around I think it’s generally attributed to this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lomasney
It should be, I fully agree, unfortunately we live in a digital panopticon.
You can always use something like PGP to encrypt your communication.
Madcow – While you are not wrong, we are talking about the unwashed masses here who are not necessarily savvy. “Private chat” really should have been.
True, sadly not many people show up for my key signing parties, even if I serve three kinds of chips.
Only if you trust the device your decrypting on. Wouldn’t trust windows or Mac with information that could put me in jail.
Except in france.
Can you link a source? That sounds concerning.
Sorry, i don’t find it anymore in all the white noise about france being anti encryption. It was about a group of teens being detained on the grounds of mere suspection for using and promoting encrypted messaging, online privacy, using tor and so on, painting that fact as a crime.
That’s horrendous.
TIL the of the word Panopticon. Thanks stranger
The only thing worse than Meta is its founder.
“I gUeSs IlL use ThReAdS. WhAts ThE hArM” /s
What data do instances expose to Meta if they federate that Meta (or literally anyone) can’t obtain right now if they wanted?
Fuck Meta!!
I love metal and hate dyslexia and 2!!
Fuck meta
Just deleted my Instagram Account for good. I have no need for any Meta App on my Phone or any other Stasi like Institution
Someone feel free to refresh me but I think it’s Samsung in the US you can only disable Facebook not delete it and it still calls home even if disabled. Probably other manufacturers as well. If you roll with android over apple 100% get a pixel. Yes fuck Google as well but they don’t have any 3rd party shit collecting your data unless you install it.
Nope, S23 Ultra unlocked here, no Facebook on device.
There were some Samsung and google apps but that’s it
This isn’t correct or at least it isn’t a universal issue. My Samsung Galaxy 21+ doesn’t have Facebook on it, disabled or otherwise.
Not so. Unlocked is Facebook free. Blame your carrier
Oh fuck yes…just checked my unlocked Samsung…no Facebook. Definitely a carrier thing fuck off Verizon
You can use adb to uninstall those kinds of baked in apps. Its completely fucked up that you need to though.
Adb? Link, please?
https://developer.android.com/tools/adb
Thanks 🙂
https://dl.google.com/android/repository/platform-tools-latest-windows.zip
https://www.xda-developers.com/install-adb-windows-macos-linux/
It’s basically remote command line control for android, from your PC.
You can backup stuff, copy stuff, install stuff…
Google “ADB Samsung debloat”. You’ll find a lot of tutorials. ADB is a part of android developer tools (it’s free).
Thank you!
I believe thats just part of the service provider bloatware packages that come preinstalled into the OS. You have to root the phone and do a clean install without the bloatware to get rid of it. Its annoying as hell and I think its stupid that these companies can preinstall anything on these phones.
Yes, lets give Meta and Zuck te benefit of the doubt.
Block all Meta and commercial access or you will be part of a product.
Good! Next time they will be wiser
How is this in any way good for anyone involved, including society as a whole?
Learning opportunity and natural selection