6 ms·

Someone reading this may disagree with abortion. But if we can separate the controversy of the topic at hand from the fact a state government requested data fro

Someone reading this may disagree with abortion. But if we can separate the controversy of the topic at hand from the fact a state government requested data from a private company for what is not universally considered a crime it could lead to a pragmatic discussion into data requests and privacy (i.e questionable practice of 'emergency data requests' that function outside the normal process of a subpoena[1]) [1]: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/03/hackers-gaining-power-of-subpoena-via-fake-emergency-data-requests/ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/03/hackers-gaining-power-of...

googlryas 4y ago
What do you mean "universally considered a crime"? Would that universe just be the state that Facebook is incorporated? It seemed probable that a crime that broke Nebraska state law was committed, and that is what the Nebraska police were looking into.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Facebook is not a Nebraska company, and the user being in a separate state would make this an interstate commerce issue. Facebook would be justified (I'd personally say it's their duty to) in refusing, and letting it bubble up into the courts and let the federal government decide.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    That's pretty much how it works - you file a subpoena from a foreign jurisdiction, and then the state court helps forward it, for example see Delaware § 4311
scarmig 4y ago
The battle to get large tech companies to respect user privacy has been fought and lost (at least in the US). Systems are explicitly built that provide portals for the government to look into people's "private" data, often without any active oversight by employees of the company itself. I'd be the first to line up to support some kind of action to change that, but at this point every large company is so closely intertwined with the State that it's a lost cause. Building out new systems that respect privacy and users is the action item here, not raging at Facebook for Facebooking.
- cdumler 4y ago
  It's also to recognize that what the Supreme Court did wasn't strike down Roe v Wade. Specifically, they struck down the idea that people do not have a right to privacy from the Constitution; thus, everything flowing from that decision is no longer supported (abortion, interracial marriage, LGBQ, etc). While some judges may attempt to argue that warrant is needed, SCOTUS has all but formally stated that "secure in your possessions" applies solely to warrants for physical items on your property. SCOTUS will likely overrule lower courts on cases. Thus, anything a company can know will be handed over. While abortion is the hot topic, other religious purity tests will be coming, like if you have ever visited LGBQ topics. Get yourself out of the cloud. If you are minority likely to be targeted by American Christian Nationalists, do it sooner than later. Many states still have sodomy laws that haven't been just enforced.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > While some judges may attempt to argue that warrant is needed Not sure I follow. In the case we are discussing here, Police had a warrant. Are there known cases of firms handing over personal communications without a warrant?
    - pas 4y ago
      how can the data portals built by these billion dollar advertising corps verify the warrants? are they reviewed by humans? is it enough to upload a blank PDF? or there is simply a checkbox with the label "i have a warrant, sure, sure"? because in practice it could be any of these. then if there is something in the data, then law enforcement gets a warrant after the fact. how would we know?
      - tantalor 4y ago
        Except in urgent cases with risk of physical harm, the default should be to challenge these requests in court, even if a warrant is offered.
      - primax 4y ago
cato_the_elder 4y ago
> not universally considered a crime it That doesn't make a difference for me, and most likely for many other people who are against late-stage abortions too. Not all of us are globalists. If you consider the concrete facts of this particular case [1] (instead of framing it as an abstract privacy or healthcare issue), I think you'd have some sympathy with people who don't find it acceptable. [1]: https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/norfolk-mother-and-daughter-accused-of-illegal-abortion-burning-and-burying-body/article_ff99fd49-a710-5ec3-8d51-5aced3001c71.html https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/nor...
- mikkergp 4y ago
  If you’re not a globalist then wouldn’t you agree that Nebraska shouldn’t have jurisdiction to subpoena companies that aren’t incorporated in Nebraska? Your argument seems pro globalism
  - cato_the_elder 4y ago
    No, Nebraska is part of the United States.
    - mikkergp 4y ago
      But Facebook isn’t incorporated in Nebraska
      - cato_the_elder 4y ago
        Yes, but the people in question are from Nebraska.
        0xbadcafebee 4y ago
        But their data isn't in Nebraska. If a person is accused of a crime in Georgia, and the person had a safe deposit box in Maine, the Maine bank doesn't have to immediately give Georgia police their possessions.
tlogan 4y ago
I think putting this story as an argument for abortion and arguing that this is not “universally crime” is hurting “pro-choice” movement since this type of abortion will not be legal even in California. Let’s focus on real problem: this poor kid needed to wait for 22 weeks. She was probably scared, intimidated, abused, and nobody was there to help. And sure Facebook is guilty here.

googlryas 4y ago

What do you mean "universally considered a crime"? Would that universe just be the state that Facebook is incorporated? It seemed probable that a crime that broke Nebraska state law was committed, and that is what the Nebraska police were looking into.

falcolas 4y ago
Facebook is not a Nebraska company, and the user being in a separate state would make this an interstate commerce issue. Facebook would be justified (I'd personally say it's their duty to) in refusing, and letting it bubble up into the courts and let the federal government decide.
- googlryas 4y ago
  That's pretty much how it works - you file a subpoena from a foreign jurisdiction, and then the state court helps forward it, for example see Delaware § 4311

scarmig 4y ago

The battle to get large tech companies to respect user privacy has been fought and lost (at least in the US). Systems are explicitly built that provide portals for the government to look into people's "private" data, often without any active oversight by employees of the company itself. I'd be the first to line up to support some kind of action to change that, but at this point every large company is so closely intertwined with the State that it's a lost cause. Building out new systems that respect privacy and users is the action item here, not raging at Facebook for Facebooking.

cdumler 4y ago
It's also to recognize that what the Supreme Court did wasn't strike down Roe v Wade. Specifically, they struck down the idea that people do not have a right to privacy from the Constitution; thus, everything flowing from that decision is no longer supported (abortion, interracial marriage, LGBQ, etc). While some judges may attempt to argue that warrant is needed, SCOTUS has all but formally stated that "secure in your possessions" applies solely to warrants for physical items on your property. SCOTUS will likely overrule lower courts on cases. Thus, anything a company can know will be handed over. While abortion is the hot topic, other religious purity tests will be coming, like if you have ever visited LGBQ topics. Get yourself out of the cloud. If you are minority likely to be targeted by American Christian Nationalists, do it sooner than later. Many states still have sodomy laws that haven't been just enforced.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > While some judges may attempt to argue that warrant is needed Not sure I follow. In the case we are discussing here, Police had a warrant. Are there known cases of firms handing over personal communications without a warrant?
  - pas 4y ago
    how can the data portals built by these billion dollar advertising corps verify the warrants? are they reviewed by humans? is it enough to upload a blank PDF? or there is simply a checkbox with the label "i have a warrant, sure, sure"? because in practice it could be any of these. then if there is something in the data, then law enforcement gets a warrant after the fact. how would we know?
    - tantalor 4y ago
      Except in urgent cases with risk of physical harm, the default should be to challenge these requests in court, even if a warrant is offered.
    - primax 4y ago

cato_the_elder 4y ago

> not universally considered a crime it That doesn't make a difference for me, and most likely for many other people who are against late-stage abortions too. Not all of us are globalists. If you consider the concrete facts of this particular case [1] (instead of framing it as an abstract privacy or healthcare issue), I think you'd have some sympathy with people who don't find it acceptable. [1]: https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/norfolk-mother-and-daughter-accused-of-illegal-abortion-burning-and-burying-body/article_ff99fd49-a710-5ec3-8d51-5aced3001c71.html https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/nor...

mikkergp 4y ago
If you’re not a globalist then wouldn’t you agree that Nebraska shouldn’t have jurisdiction to subpoena companies that aren’t incorporated in Nebraska? Your argument seems pro globalism
- cato_the_elder 4y ago
  No, Nebraska is part of the United States.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    But Facebook isn’t incorporated in Nebraska
    - cato_the_elder 4y ago
      Yes, but the people in question are from Nebraska.
      - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
        But their data isn't in Nebraska. If a person is accused of a crime in Georgia, and the person had a safe deposit box in Maine, the Maine bank doesn't have to immediately give Georgia police their possessions.

tlogan 4y ago

I think putting this story as an argument for abortion and arguing that this is not “universally crime” is hurting “pro-choice” movement since this type of abortion will not be legal even in California. Let’s focus on real problem: this poor kid needed to wait for 22 weeks. She was probably scared, intimidated, abused, and nobody was there to help. And sure Facebook is guilty here.