4 ms·

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 Cour

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.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > much more juicy You're not kidding. Doing state-by-state battle over jurisdiction and the right of each state to create its own laws would be ... interesting. I'd expect it to be very destructive overall. Not saying it would necessarily lead to an end of the union, but it's a step. Seems to be a pattern, lately, and specific to abortion as well. The ends justifying the means, regardless of collateral damage.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    It's not obvious to me that the end of the Union would be a bad thing.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      It is hard to deny that this is a pretty common thought these days. I hear a lot of people making sounds in that direction, regardless of their more traditional ideological views. We'd have to figure out how the nukes are divided up, however. Though what is it they say about possession being 9/10ths of the law...
      - wnscooke 4y ago
        The people expressing this thought clearly have spent very little time in other countries to appreciate what y'all have.
        rootusrootus 4y ago
        Fantasizing about the end of the world/country/whatever is a popular pastime in the US. It is reasonable to suspect that the talk is primarily the 1% loudest people and that if anything starts to look like it's getting real, the remaining majority will step on the brakes.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago

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.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> much more juicy You're not kidding. Doing state-by-state battle over jurisdiction and the right of each state to create its own laws would be ... interesting. I'd expect it to be very destructive overall. Not saying it would necessarily lead to an end of the union, but it's a step. Seems to be a pattern, lately, and specific to abortion as well. The ends justifying the means, regardless of collateral damage.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  It's not obvious to me that the end of the Union would be a bad thing.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    It is hard to deny that this is a pretty common thought these days. I hear a lot of people making sounds in that direction, regardless of their more traditional ideological views. We'd have to figure out how the nukes are divided up, however. Though what is it they say about possession being 9/10ths of the law...
    - wnscooke 4y ago
      The people expressing this thought clearly have spent very little time in other countries to appreciate what y'all have.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        Fantasizing about the end of the world/country/whatever is a popular pastime in the US. It is reasonable to suspect that the talk is primarily the 1% loudest people and that if anything starts to look like it's getting real, the remaining majority will step on the brakes.
        kelseyfrog 4y ago