5 ms·

> Police had made the discovery after obtaining a warrant that required Meta to hand over their conversations on Facebook Messenger. The messages, which were no

> Police had made the discovery after obtaining a warrant that required Meta to hand over their conversations on Facebook Messenger. The messages, which were not encrypted, showed the two had discussed obtaining and using abortion pills. I read the headline thinking they were using digital medical data, i.e., what insurance companies do. That would be legitimately frightening. Nope, police are just exploiting bad opsec. Don't bring your phone to your robbery, don't talk about your alleged crimes on Facebook Messenger. Lots of people don't know that these channels are not secure. (Edit: Abortion is currently illegal in some U.S. jurisdictions. There is debate about whether it should or shouldn't be.)

jupp0r 4y ago
You shouldn't have to do opsec to get medical care.
- syzarian 4y ago
  In the U.S. people often times are viewed as getting what they deserve for decisions made during periods of non-hyper vigilance. In our quest for an Ayn Randian paradise we believe it is a person’s fault if they aren’t hyper vigilant at all times.
  - password11 4y ago
    I don't think it's what they deserved. There are many things that are illegal but probably shouldn't be: weed for example. What I'm saying is, the article was actually about the fact that police are exploiting known insecure channels, not new ones. But the article title was suggesting the police were using new channels to surveil people. And I'm just surprised that many people don't know that phone calls, SMS, Google Searches, and Facebook Messenger can be obtained via subpoena.
    - syzarian 4y ago
      I wasn’t referring to you. I know that it probably looked like it. I was trying to explain to jupp0r how some Americans view punishment in the U.S. As a whole this country is quite vengeful and we sometimes take personal responsibility to an unrealistic extreme. I should have clarified that I did not think you were engaging in type of rationalization.
- password11 4y ago
  Completely agree.
mrgovson 4y ago
That sounds like something someone really depressed would say. Kind of a crazy thing to imagine someone casually saying 10 years ago. "Hah it's a simple case of being a boiled frog, nothing to see here!"
- password11 4y ago
  > That sounds like something someone really depressed would say What does?
  - nullish_signal 4y ago
    Behaving in all interactions, public and private, as if a Police Panopticon is watching you. It well May Be! Facebook is not your Friend, absolutely. I do agree that personal conversations are better had Face to Face. But blaming oneself, or victims of the Digital Panopticon, for their ineptitude, is very disheartening. Of -course- they could have had better opsec. But for another Example, of -course- any Suicide victim could have also chosen to "do better" instead. Equally insensitive advice, even if it is true.
    - password11 4y ago
      Fair enough, I think what I said was a bit haughty in retrospect. However, this is a very serious matter. If found guilty, this person will have a criminal record. Doing something illegal in the United States is very dangerous, and you should be very careful, as there are lots of known and unknown channels which you can unknowingly get yourself caught.

jupp0r 4y ago

You shouldn't have to do opsec to get medical care.

syzarian 4y ago
In the U.S. people often times are viewed as getting what they deserve for decisions made during periods of non-hyper vigilance. In our quest for an Ayn Randian paradise we believe it is a person’s fault if they aren’t hyper vigilant at all times.
- password11 4y ago
  I don't think it's what they deserved. There are many things that are illegal but probably shouldn't be: weed for example. What I'm saying is, the article was actually about the fact that police are exploiting known insecure channels, not new ones. But the article title was suggesting the police were using new channels to surveil people. And I'm just surprised that many people don't know that phone calls, SMS, Google Searches, and Facebook Messenger can be obtained via subpoena.
  - syzarian 4y ago
    I wasn’t referring to you. I know that it probably looked like it. I was trying to explain to jupp0r how some Americans view punishment in the U.S. As a whole this country is quite vengeful and we sometimes take personal responsibility to an unrealistic extreme. I should have clarified that I did not think you were engaging in type of rationalization.
password11 4y ago
Completely agree.

mrgovson 4y ago

That sounds like something someone really depressed would say. Kind of a crazy thing to imagine someone casually saying 10 years ago. "Hah it's a simple case of being a boiled frog, nothing to see here!"

password11 4y ago
> That sounds like something someone really depressed would say What does?
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  Behaving in all interactions, public and private, as if a Police Panopticon is watching you. It well May Be! Facebook is not your Friend, absolutely. I do agree that personal conversations are better had Face to Face. But blaming oneself, or victims of the Digital Panopticon, for their ineptitude, is very disheartening. Of -course- they could have had better opsec. But for another Example, of -course- any Suicide victim could have also chosen to "do better" instead. Equally insensitive advice, even if it is true.
  - password11 4y ago
    Fair enough, I think what I said was a bit haughty in retrospect. However, this is a very serious matter. If found guilty, this person will have a criminal record. Doing something illegal in the United States is very dangerous, and you should be very careful, as there are lots of known and unknown channels which you can unknowingly get yourself caught.