3 ms·
Everybody seems to be reading and answering this from the assumption that the writer of this article wants you to believe Facebook is bad for complying with thi
by nonameiguess 4y ago
Everybody seems to be reading and answering this from the assumption that the writer of this article wants you to believe Facebook is bad for complying with this warrant, but I can't see where that is the case. I read the article and she's just reporting what happened. There is no statement saying this is bad, anyone should be outraged, or that they should ignore and/or break laws. Presumably, part of the reason for writing articles like this is just to inform people who might think of breaking the law not to engage in their conspiracies to break laws using Facebook private messages as the communications medium. Drug dealers and terrorists are well aware by now, but people who weren't breaking the law a few weeks ago need to know.
- johnnyanmac 4y ago>this article wants you to believe Facebook is bad for complying with this warrant, but I can't see where that is the case. That's probably due the headline missing vital context that turns this from arguments on backdoors(a topic FB has often got into trouble with) to one of "can you issue search warrants on digital media?" But I understand writers don't often write the headline in larger publications. Maybe the writer wanted to be impartial but some higher power wanted to maximize engagement