Soupystorm
Jon Gilbert
(unsure what I'm talking about? Here: https://www.thecut.com/2023/07/nebraska-mom-daughter-charges-illegal-abortion-facebook-chat.html )
(still using facebook? Stop. working at facebook? You're an awful person.)
GreenDotGuy@jgilbert It's not like Meta just handed them over, they were served a warrant.
Almost every company, including the ones y'all work at, would do the same. When the government serves you a warrant, you comply or face nasty consequences.
Almost every company, including the ones y'all work at, would do the same. When the government serves you a warrant, you comply or face nasty consequences.
スパックマン クリスTrue, and ...
* Facebook could have fought the warrant. (To be fair, I'm not sure how many companies do this, nor how effective it is.)
* people should maybe not trust friends (they told the police she took some pills)
* Facebook could be using end-to-end encryption on DMs (or everywhere) so as to not be able to hand over any data.
* FB could tell everyone "your DMS are not secure!!" a lot.
Luna 
@chris_spackman @DarcMoughty @jgilbert Not like they don't have the tech for E2E encryption, you can enable it, it's just that they make it purposefully clunky and off by default because they make their money off of selling your data :p
Jonathan Hartley's old account@chris_spackman:
> "people should maybe not trust friends"
That's some nihilist shit there. What?
Teenagers talking to their friends are not at fault here. Teenage friends making bad decisions should not be blamed for being teenagers. Even Facebook, devils that they are, cannot be blamed for complying with a legal order. The fault here lies 100% with the law, the scum politicians that passed it, and the bastard police that made the decision to enforce it.
I meant the friends thing somewhat sarcastically as a way of showing that there was more context than just the search warrant. It's not like police said "give us any DMs where people talk about abortion." They had a specific target because others talked to the police (and as you say, the crap law.)
As for forgiving teenagers, that is for the girl and her mom. I'm not a psychologist, but I won't be surprised if the young lady has some trust issues in the future.
jhall251
dameoutlaw@DarcMoughty @jhall251 @jgilbert Thanks for saying this. I see this story pushed as if Meta just randomly decided to handover information to the authorities. Then there’s people on their high horses as if admins wouldn’t hand over their data quickly to the law
@DarcMoughty @jgilbert
Because meta has no legal department and no resources to take the state to court? No ability to raise a stink about it? Come on. There is a lot of room between going to jail vs quickly and quietly handing over info on young women. I understand a teenager being intimidated into cooperating. Not a megacorp.
Because meta has no legal department and no resources to take the state to court? No ability to raise a stink about it? Come on. There is a lot of room between going to jail vs quickly and quietly handing over info on young women. I understand a teenager being intimidated into cooperating. Not a megacorp.
@jhall251 @jgilbert Respectfully, I don't think you quite grasp how this works. If your company is operating in a state where the law says something is criminal, there is no 'stand up to a warrant in court', because the courts will rule against you nearly instantly and levy a punishment.
It's really not a Meta thing. Every phone company, every taxi service or ride share, every social media provider, university, grocery, pharmacy, and doctor would comply with a warrant, regardless of what it's for. It would make national news if they didn't, and they'd lose if they tried to fight it.
It's likely that Meta doesn't even interpret the reason for the warrant, they have a department that handles hundreds or thousands of signed court orders a day and probably a bunch of automated tools to speed compliance.
I work on a team that interfaces between the lawyers and the information systems. We don't even know the reasons for legal holds and discovery requests we satisfy for the courts, we just get names and data request details from the lawyers and feed them to the scripts.
@DarcMoughty @jgilbert
What sort of punishment? Something that Meta couldn't deal with? Please don't kid yourself. If Meta wanted to fight they would find a way. They don't. You may think that's just fine. But it really isn't. And your apologetics sound pretty good German to me.
What sort of punishment? Something that Meta couldn't deal with? Please don't kid yourself. If Meta wanted to fight they would find a way. They don't. You may think that's just fine. But it really isn't. And your apologetics sound pretty good German to me.
@DarcMoughty @jgilbert
For instance, look how Musk is resisting a subpoena for Trump's twitter stuff.
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1689331636771471361?s=20
For instance, look how Musk is resisting a subpoena for Trump's twitter stuff.
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1689331636771471361?s=20
jaseg@DarcMoughty @jgilbert Unjust warrants have been a thing for as long as we have courts, as is the practice of not keeping around written records you don't want to end up in the hands of the police. Everyone is responsible for making sure that they don't end up getting a teen into jail for an abortion. The easiest ways to do that are to either clearly inform people about the danger, or to encrypt everything and not store what you can't encrypt. Facebook did neither, and became a trap.
Beeks@DarcMoughty @jgilbert look Apple can eat my whole ass but they famously tell the federal government to suck their dick every time they want a terrorist's iPhone unlocked, so it's definitely in Meta's power to value their customer's privacy.
@DarcMoughty @jgilbert dang right they do. If it's on the cloud the FBI has seen it. Like I said, Apple can eat my whole ass. But you know they can unlock phones. The only reason they don't is because they don't want that information public. Facebook could do the same thing and claim DMs are encrypted and unable to be read. We all know it's bullshit, but they'd gain public support so the police couldn't push them on it.
@Beeks @jgilbert I have a less cynical view. Meta offers a free product that has the end-to-end encryption that Facebook should, but setting it up is a bit harder, so it's not the default for their mainline product.
I'm not upset at Meta on this; if you wanna do crimes, regardless of whether they ought not be crimes where you live, WhatsApp is right there.
Damon Outlaw@DarcMoughty That’s for those that have not turned on Advanced Data Protection
Sonja London 
🏳️🌈@DarcMoughty @jgilbert Incorrect! Ethical companies always push back. Government warrants are often overly broad or in direct conflict with actual laws and sometimes even the Constitution. I've been on the receiving end many times. We have always pushed back. Sometimes they return with a narrow more focused warrant. Sometimes they just drop it. We have a Bill of Rights and laws to protect us against government overreach. Companies who fail to support this need to be dealt with.
Lena@jgilbert and it will get worse
Carm Wilson 🇨🇦 📍Vancouver, BC
TheCityDweller 
Many of my friends when confronted with this:
"But I still will move there because I can afford a house there! I do not care their abortion bans, book bans, anti lgbtiq, ... as I am not affected but I need a house to survive at retirement age"
DB Schwein@deirdrebeth @jgilbert Not with the gerrymandering. And no they don't move there to change things. They move there for HOUSE and LOW TAXES and are ok to throw everything for this under the bus. At least in my acquaintances bubble.
Patrick H. Lauke@jgilbert while of course horrific, is it not more "the law required facebook to give..." ?
Anders Eknert@patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert that only works if Facebook can read her DMs in the first place, which is a choice they’ve made.
@anderseknert @jgilbert same choice that mastodon made, and twxtter, and ...
@anderseknert @jgilbert point is: blame the legislation, don't single out facebook as if they're acting out of anything other than being legally required to do so...
@patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert No one's singled out here — something Facebook did was the topic of the post, which is why the discussion is likely to revolve around them. It is perfectly OK to blame both them and legislation. They might not have a choice to change legislation, but they do have a choice to make this type of request possible in the first place.
wrongdog@patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert Facebook had repeatedly chosen to profit from user data rather than protect them - or else they would be using end to end encryption.
Tom Bellin 
@patrick_h_lauke @jgilbert The law required Facebook to do something abhorrent. Facebook did it. *Facebook* did it.
We have a pretty good idea of how decisions are made there. They knew this would look bad for them publicly. But they figured the damage would be less than not complying. They ran the numbers and decided it would cost them more to fight the warrant than it would in lost users.
Let's prove them wrong.
toxtethogrady@jgilbert And for this, Zuckerberg can roast in Hell. As well as for all the ads for tac gear and body armor on the site...
MinzeShädelEule@jgilbert the main reason why I deleted my Facebook and deactivated my Instagram accounts
Kevin RussellThis isnt "hate facebook more" this is: Tech bros are ALL giving police transcripts of everything said in front of a phone, smart speaker, smart tv, facebook, xitter.
Everything said in front of Alexa and Siri is transcribed and stored, searchable for offenses.
Alexa transcripts have been used to jail a mother and daughter talking about womens health AT HOME.
All your devices are controlled tech bros. All are cooperating with police.
Doorbell video camera are watched live.
Jon@kevinrns @jgilbert It’s worth pointing out the Supreme Court has created a 3rd party exception to the 4th amendment.
If you give information to a 3rd party - be it a bank, a teleco, Facebook, or an app that tracks cycles - a warrant isn’t required to search that information, at least as far as the US Constitution is concerned.
Ediiting out nonsense.
1. It agrees completely with my point that your ASUMED PRIVACY in front a toy a tech Bro sold IS GONE.
Nothing you say in front of Alexa or your phone is safe, ypur privacy will be stolen, you WILL be sold out to republican courts.
Your daughter is being watched by creeps in glass towers, her words transcribed, her freedom threatened, by her phone.
Some GOP loons are talking about abortion murder charges
@kevinrns The only point is that there’s no constitutional protection. People tend to think of their phone as their private sphere, but data transmitted to tech bros doesn’t enjoy an expectation of privacy from the Court. (Unless it’s encrypted from your device and the tech co has no back door.)
Yes thanks. I am concerned that, like tixtter users thinking they are still on social media, and not being used to hide a weapon, device users DO NOT KNOW they are having their privacy stolen by their devices. It can be, and has, been used to arrest women talking about healthcare in their own home alone.
Maybe a cardboard police officer needs to put on display with just this message across the chest, for dorms? Places were privacy might be appreciated. The ACLU might help.
Hmmm maybe there is needed a 1st and 4th ammendment version of smart devices. Ha. That would change tech. A mandated requirement to protect information
Charlie Stross@kevinrns @jgilbert @graydon Siri does not retain audio recordings unless you specifically opt in to a quality improvement program. (Apple doubled down on privacy in 2019 after they were called out over it.) Newer idevices (this is rather more recent than 2019) process voice requests on-device, rather than sending them to a server.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/08/improving-siris-privacy-protections/
I would trust Alexa, Google, Facebook, etc., as far as I could throw an Amazon server farm.
I dont have enough confidence to comment, but glad its being addressed even in only public relations.
I have pressed for an Awards program run by privacy orgs, digital rights orgs, to give out prizes for devices and software that dont report back to builders on its use.
Devices that are a friend, not a police officer.
Thanks Charlie.
frox@kevinrns @cstross @jgilbert @graydon Apple are masters of spin, and have repeatedly been deceitful regarding privacy on their devices. Whether it's the "do-not-track" button which still lets you be tracked by apple or apple's access to supposedly "encrypted" files on icloud: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/19/opinion/apple-iphone-privacy.html
There is no way to check their claims due to their walled gardens. They are surveillance capitalists just like the others. There is no privacy without exclusive and full control of your devices.
KozmykThis is what you get by voting for Republicans. They are anti-social mentally deranged trash.
Evil Bunny Pottymouth
Kevin Karhan 
Spaghetti@jgilbert Facebook is a cop! Fuck cops fuck Facebook
Supergrobi@jgilbert definitely not going to happen in Fediverse (outside of future Threads)
StevenLeeCanada🧢@jgilbert holy crap
jpelletier@jgilbert wouldn't Mastodon servers do the same thing? I assume all services centralized or not do this. I don't like this, but I'm not understanding what it has to do with Facebook.
The Evil Microwizard@jgilbert For anyone who is wondering why it would be bad for Threads to federate...
Sean@evilmicrowizard @jgilbert wouldn't whatever data Meta could scrape still be scraped even if not federated? If threads is federated, doesn't that open the hundred million users to be exposed to the fediverse and then can trickle across from ad-supported-algorithmic-ad nauseum platforms to the fediverse to escape the ads and algorithm? I can't imagine that there will be users are active on Mastodon or lemmy.ml or whatever and then go to Threads. It's not apparent to me that it's all downside
@evilmicrowizard @jgilbert FB messenger is far from secure, but security through obscurity that is the fediverse should be withheld to Meta's users because of being exposed to an alternative platform? I don't think that Meta will ever federate, just like fellow ActivityPub Truth Social, because they don't want their users to ever have access to outside their walled gardens. Think of federation as email server & whether or not to white-list or ban other email servers. Ppl should get off Meta
@evilmicrowizard @jgilbert police already regularly get content from phone carriers, Meta complying as a carrier is a convoluted reason to defederate and keep hundreds of millions of users inside the walled garden. It's my opinion that Threads will not in the foreseeable future federate, they'll keep their users inside their walls for long as possible.
Do you also believe that Chinese people shouldn't be allowed to interact beyond the Great Firewall of China because of crimes of the CCP?