9 ms·

They say they are correcting the record but their statement matches with what I've read in the news and saw on Reddit. Nothing new.

fzfaa 4y ago
The problem is not what people read, but what they do not read - journalists have an axe to grind against Facebook, so they write titles that make it sound like Facebook willingly gave the data to the police, and most people don't go beyond reading the title.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Whether you think Facebook is right or not, this story gives pause about what kind of information you share online. It's one more reason to participate less or not participate at all in these services.
- wpietri 4y ago
  What makes you say journalists have an axe to grind against Facebook? If anything, I think they spent more than a decade being too generous to Facebook, and even now are overly credulous a lot of the time.
  - ninth_ant 4y ago
    Facebook was a media darling until they became profitable and ate the media’s lunch. When it became clear that FB would swallow a large chunk of online ad dollars that the media companies coveted, their attitude changed rather suddenly.
- Miraste 4y ago
  They did willingly give the data to the police. Compare Apple v. FBI. "But the iPhone was encrypted" - nothing is stopping Facebook from encrypting Messenger.
  - ahahahahah 4y ago
    That's right, nothing is stopping them. In fact, they've already done it. Messenger supports e2ee.
- tomjen3 4y ago
  That seems a good thing, as it will tarnish Facebook both with beeing bad and with being involved in the abortion issue, which is super division no matter what. And it is not like Facebook doesn't have options here. They can fight the warrant and they can publish the private information of the people involved with the warrant.
Overtonwindow 4y ago
Never underestimate a PR team’s ability or desire to spin everything.
tootie 4y ago
The stories were accurate, but most of the headlines said Facebook "gave" data to law enforcement, when it's more accurate to say they were legally obligated to provide data. The villains in this story are the law enforcement agencies, legislators and judges who set the rules. Facebook did nothing wrong.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Facebook absolutely did something wrong. Perhaps, if they weren't so intent on hoovering up our data for advertisers, they might have built their systems such that they couldn't provide that data to law enforcement.
- wpietri 4y ago
  I've been on the other end of law enforcement requests for data, and they were not legally obligated to provide the data right away. They had the option to fight the subpoena. For example, Twitter fought an attempt to expose somebody mocking Rep Devin Nunes: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/18/devin-nunes-mother-twitter-trump-justice-department https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/18/devin-nunes-...
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    IANAL but I think a subpoena is different from a warrant.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      They are. Roughly, a warrant is issued to a law enforcement agent and grants them powers not normally granted (arrest, search, etc). A subpoena is issued to a 3rd party to produce evidence or appear in court. In this case, the warrant appears to have been issued to an officer in the Norfolk PD, who then asked FB for any messages between the two suspects. What's not clear to me (IANAL) is what power FB had to refuse to comply with the warrant. If they refused to comply, would the police start seizing servers? Or, would FB be held in contempt (usually applies to subpoenas, not sure if that would apply with a warrant). All that said, the "easy" answer for FB (Apple, Google, etc) is E2E encryption of messages. Then all they can do it produce the encrypted "gibberish" and the PD has to hack it or move on.
wpietri 4y ago
For sure. What troubles me here is that Facebook didn't fight it. What I'd like them to do is to fight overly intrusive requests all the way to the Supreme Court. Maybe this is trying to say they that feel that they got hoodwinked? If so, they need to say that very clearly. Because I'm not at all confident that Facebook is particularly committed to user privacy, especially when they are eager to suck up to politicians.
- wollsmoth 4y ago
  There was a warrant, which is pretty much the bar. If you can get a warrant to find evidence for a crime, I don't know what the court battle would be about. You don't have a right to privacy to conspire about crimes on facebook. Even if you don't agree it should be a crime.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  I think this is the closest thing to Meta stating that they were misled “Court documents indicate that police were at that time investigating the alleged illegal burning and burial of a stillborn infant.”
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Perhaps that is actually what the police were investigating at the time.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Right. This is the thread I'm interested in. Facebook, has among many choices, two clear and easily territories in which to advance user privacy: technically and legally. Technically, Facebook could implement E2E for private messages. Doing so would make disclosure not something they were unwilling to do, but unable to do. The other, and this is much more juicy, would be to lobby the California legislature to make it illegal under state law to disclose private conversations re: abortion to states where abortion is prohibited. The fact that these are possible, but not likely to happen is another issue altogether.
username223 4y ago
Yep. Facebook Messenger isn’t E2E encrypted by default, it takes a bit of digging to make it that way, and Facebook obeys warrants for unencrypted messages. This may be important if you’re doing something recently made illegal.

fzfaa 4y ago

The problem is not what people read, but what they do not read - journalists have an axe to grind against Facebook, so they write titles that make it sound like Facebook willingly gave the data to the police, and most people don't go beyond reading the title.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PaulHoule 4y ago
Whether you think Facebook is right or not, this story gives pause about what kind of information you share online. It's one more reason to participate less or not participate at all in these services.
wpietri 4y ago
What makes you say journalists have an axe to grind against Facebook? If anything, I think they spent more than a decade being too generous to Facebook, and even now are overly credulous a lot of the time.
- ninth_ant 4y ago
  Facebook was a media darling until they became profitable and ate the media’s lunch. When it became clear that FB would swallow a large chunk of online ad dollars that the media companies coveted, their attitude changed rather suddenly.
Miraste 4y ago
They did willingly give the data to the police. Compare Apple v. FBI. "But the iPhone was encrypted" - nothing is stopping Facebook from encrypting Messenger.
- ahahahahah 4y ago
  That's right, nothing is stopping them. In fact, they've already done it. Messenger supports e2ee.
tomjen3 4y ago
That seems a good thing, as it will tarnish Facebook both with beeing bad and with being involved in the abortion issue, which is super division no matter what. And it is not like Facebook doesn't have options here. They can fight the warrant and they can publish the private information of the people involved with the warrant.

Overtonwindow 4y ago

Never underestimate a PR team’s ability or desire to spin everything.

tootie 4y ago

The stories were accurate, but most of the headlines said Facebook "gave" data to law enforcement, when it's more accurate to say they were legally obligated to provide data. The villains in this story are the law enforcement agencies, legislators and judges who set the rules. Facebook did nothing wrong.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Facebook absolutely did something wrong. Perhaps, if they weren't so intent on hoovering up our data for advertisers, they might have built their systems such that they couldn't provide that data to law enforcement.
wpietri 4y ago
I've been on the other end of law enforcement requests for data, and they were not legally obligated to provide the data right away. They had the option to fight the subpoena. For example, Twitter fought an attempt to expose somebody mocking Rep Devin Nunes: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/18/devin-nunes-mother-twitter-trump-justice-department https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/18/devin-nunes-...
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  IANAL but I think a subpoena is different from a warrant.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    They are. Roughly, a warrant is issued to a law enforcement agent and grants them powers not normally granted (arrest, search, etc). A subpoena is issued to a 3rd party to produce evidence or appear in court. In this case, the warrant appears to have been issued to an officer in the Norfolk PD, who then asked FB for any messages between the two suspects. What's not clear to me (IANAL) is what power FB had to refuse to comply with the warrant. If they refused to comply, would the police start seizing servers? Or, would FB be held in contempt (usually applies to subpoenas, not sure if that would apply with a warrant). All that said, the "easy" answer for FB (Apple, Google, etc) is E2E encryption of messages. Then all they can do it produce the encrypted "gibberish" and the PD has to hack it or move on.

wpietri 4y ago

For sure. What troubles me here is that Facebook didn't fight it. What I'd like them to do is to fight overly intrusive requests all the way to the Supreme Court. Maybe this is trying to say they that feel that they got hoodwinked? If so, they need to say that very clearly. Because I'm not at all confident that Facebook is particularly committed to user privacy, especially when they are eager to suck up to politicians.

wollsmoth 4y ago
There was a warrant, which is pretty much the bar. If you can get a warrant to find evidence for a crime, I don't know what the court battle would be about. You don't have a right to privacy to conspire about crimes on facebook. Even if you don't agree it should be a crime.
chaostheory 4y ago
I think this is the closest thing to Meta stating that they were misled “Court documents indicate that police were at that time investigating the alleged illegal burning and burial of a stillborn infant.”
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Perhaps that is actually what the police were investigating at the time.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
Right. This is the thread I'm interested in. Facebook, has among many choices, two clear and easily territories in which to advance user privacy: technically and legally. Technically, Facebook could implement E2E for private messages. Doing so would make disclosure not something they were unwilling to do, but unable to do. The other, and this is much more juicy, would be to lobby the California legislature to make it illegal under state law to disclose private conversations re: abortion to states where abortion is prohibited. The fact that these are possible, but not likely to happen is another issue altogether.

username223 4y ago

Yep. Facebook Messenger isn’t E2E encrypted by default, it takes a bit of digging to make it that way, and Facebook obeys warrants for unencrypted messages. This may be important if you’re doing something recently made illegal.