5 ms·

It shouldn't be up to Facebook/Google to decide what is a crime, nor in which cases wiretapping should be allowed.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Y_Y 4y ago
And as far as I know it isn't. At least these companies certainly comply with lawful warrants. They may be more helpful in cases of their choosing (e.g. CSAM) but are they really expected to refuse when a court orders them to assist with an investigation on the basis that they (to the extent possible for a company) disagree with the law in question?
- lelanthran 4y ago
  I wanted to reply to GP with something along these lines, but I could not tell what the GPs comment actually meant, it was too ambiguous. > It shouldn't be up to Facebook/Google to decide what is a crime, nor in which cases wiretapping should be allowed. Could mean either: 1. FB/Google should be prevented from deciding what is and is not a crime. They don't set the laws. Or 2. FB/Google aren't setting the laws, so can't be blamed when complying with those laws. Maybe it's my sleepiness, but I just cannot decide which of the two statements were intended by GP.
jeroenhd 4y ago
Abortions are now a crime in several American states, close if not equal to murder. These companies just do what they've always done when it comes to murder cases: hand over the data when the authorities demand it through warrants. As they should, in theory. Facebook and Google are not to blame here; they're simply doing what the law demands of them. These companies are not above the law, they cannot refuse warrants. Blame Nebraskan and American federal law for this situation. With a bit of luck, this situation will make these companies put more priority into E2EE. Had these conversations been done through Signal, there was likely nothing to be found or handed over.
- orra 4y ago
  > Facebook and Google are not to blame here; they're simply doing what the law demands of them The article disagrees: > One legal expert said social platforms may cooperate with police even if not legally required to. Regardless, you are right these companies are morally culpable for not implementing E2EE.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    >One legal expert said social platforms may cooperate with police even if not legally required to. From my reading of the article this is purely speculative, however. There's no actual assertion that FB/Google are doing more than complying with valid warrants, other than observing that this appears to be the case with other types of warrants. So I guess one could fault these companies for not fighting tooth and nail over these warrants in a way they wouldn't for other warrants, but that seems like a weak condemnation.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      > From my reading of the article this is purely speculative, however. Apple publishes statistics about their shared data, and whether data shared was shared because of a warrant or request. The company very often just hands over data without a warrant, a simple request is all that's needed. I doubt they are unique in that regard.
      - orra 4y ago
        Precisely. And, you know, maybe they could challenge some of these warrants, even if retroactively?
      - yanderekko 4y ago
        Yes, but to the one case specifically mentioned in the article Facebook said the warrant was valid. Hence further commentary about how companies are not simply doing as required in these specific cases is speculative. Seeing further discussion on this it seems unlikely that the warrants in question made any specific reference to abortion to begin with. So there isn't even a notion in many instances that these social media companies could provide extra scrutiny unless they made this determination on their own. Maybe social media companies should fight tooth and nail over every data request, but somehow I think most people don't want this. The same people who would be outraged at Facebook turning over data in an abortion case are probably the ones who are fine with say Facebook turning over data related to the January 6th protestors. Is there actually a non viewpoint-based principled stance behind the outrage, or is this just an instance of working the ref to your team's advantage?
croes 4y ago
So if the Iranian government wants data, they should comply?
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > So if the Iranian government wants data, they should comply? If they want to do business in a certain nation, they'll have to comply with the laws of that nation. Are you proposing that companies be above the law? That they should be able to pick and choose which laws apply to them?
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Hmm... What if they don't do business in that country but simply don't block that country?
- aww_dang 4y ago
  A better question might be, "Should they have data in this readily accessible format given the potential moral hazards?" They could opt-out of being forced to comply with or defy authorities.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Y_Y 4y ago

And as far as I know it isn't. At least these companies certainly comply with lawful warrants. They may be more helpful in cases of their choosing (e.g. CSAM) but are they really expected to refuse when a court orders them to assist with an investigation on the basis that they (to the extent possible for a company) disagree with the law in question?

lelanthran 4y ago
I wanted to reply to GP with something along these lines, but I could not tell what the GPs comment actually meant, it was too ambiguous. > It shouldn't be up to Facebook/Google to decide what is a crime, nor in which cases wiretapping should be allowed. Could mean either: 1. FB/Google should be prevented from deciding what is and is not a crime. They don't set the laws. Or 2. FB/Google aren't setting the laws, so can't be blamed when complying with those laws. Maybe it's my sleepiness, but I just cannot decide which of the two statements were intended by GP.

jeroenhd 4y ago

Abortions are now a crime in several American states, close if not equal to murder. These companies just do what they've always done when it comes to murder cases: hand over the data when the authorities demand it through warrants. As they should, in theory. Facebook and Google are not to blame here; they're simply doing what the law demands of them. These companies are not above the law, they cannot refuse warrants. Blame Nebraskan and American federal law for this situation. With a bit of luck, this situation will make these companies put more priority into E2EE. Had these conversations been done through Signal, there was likely nothing to be found or handed over.

orra 4y ago
> Facebook and Google are not to blame here; they're simply doing what the law demands of them The article disagrees: > One legal expert said social platforms may cooperate with police even if not legally required to. Regardless, you are right these companies are morally culpable for not implementing E2EE.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >One legal expert said social platforms may cooperate with police even if not legally required to. From my reading of the article this is purely speculative, however. There's no actual assertion that FB/Google are doing more than complying with valid warrants, other than observing that this appears to be the case with other types of warrants. So I guess one could fault these companies for not fighting tooth and nail over these warrants in a way they wouldn't for other warrants, but that seems like a weak condemnation.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    > From my reading of the article this is purely speculative, however. Apple publishes statistics about their shared data, and whether data shared was shared because of a warrant or request. The company very often just hands over data without a warrant, a simple request is all that's needed. I doubt they are unique in that regard.
    - orra 4y ago
      Precisely. And, you know, maybe they could challenge some of these warrants, even if retroactively?
    - yanderekko 4y ago
      Yes, but to the one case specifically mentioned in the article Facebook said the warrant was valid. Hence further commentary about how companies are not simply doing as required in these specific cases is speculative. Seeing further discussion on this it seems unlikely that the warrants in question made any specific reference to abortion to begin with. So there isn't even a notion in many instances that these social media companies could provide extra scrutiny unless they made this determination on their own. Maybe social media companies should fight tooth and nail over every data request, but somehow I think most people don't want this. The same people who would be outraged at Facebook turning over data in an abortion case are probably the ones who are fine with say Facebook turning over data related to the January 6th protestors. Is there actually a non viewpoint-based principled stance behind the outrage, or is this just an instance of working the ref to your team's advantage?

croes 4y ago

So if the Iranian government wants data, they should comply?

lelanthran 4y ago
> So if the Iranian government wants data, they should comply? If they want to do business in a certain nation, they'll have to comply with the laws of that nation. Are you proposing that companies be above the law? That they should be able to pick and choose which laws apply to them?
- concordDance 4y ago
  Hmm... What if they don't do business in that country but simply don't block that country?
aww_dang 4y ago
A better question might be, "Should they have data in this readily accessible format given the potential moral hazards?" They could opt-out of being forced to comply with or defy authorities.