6 ms·

Are these specifically private posts/conversations? It seems like a logical decision for private stuff but if you're dumb enough to set your post settings to pu

Are these specifically private posts/conversations? It seems like a logical decision for private stuff but if you're dumb enough to set your post settings to public and incriminate yourself then you have no one to blame but yourself.

olliej 3y ago
First paragraph :D > The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that law enforcement must obtain a wiretap to force near-simultaneous disclosure of private social media postings I don't think you're correct to limit it to just DMs, as a private group on Facebook would - to me - be conceptually similar to a clubhouse (or hell even a "business" as MLMs on FB are called :D) or some such. You don't lose the warrant requirement just because it's a group of people vs just 1:1.
- noman-land 3y ago
  I haven't read it but if it specifies that a warrant is needed for "near-simultaneous" disclosure, is one needed for non-near-simultaneous disclosure?
  - olliej 3y ago
    I am so very much not a lawyer so can't answer - all I could do is guess wildly but try and sound authoritative while talking out my *ss :D
    - owlbite 3y ago
      (and you're still probably better than ChatGPT?)
      - olliej 3y ago
        and even if not, at least I won't claim to be correct :D
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    I think there was a post on here a while back about people calling Facebook and impersonating the police department saying there is a threat to life, like a kid was kidnapped or something, and getting access to spouses/coworkers/enemies facebook messages. Might at least make that harder to do.
  - 3np 3y ago
    TFA says warrant is not sufficient for near-simultaneous (while indeed, it is required for non-near-simultaneous) but a wiretap order is required.
- WilTimSon 3y ago
  A private group is not the same as DMs on a privacy level, though. Two can keep a secret, not more. I distinctly remember reading about cops socially engineering their way into protest chats in Hong Kong, because when it's a big group of people, it's easier to say "oh yeah, I'm a friend of John's" and get away with it.
  - olliej 3y ago
    What you're saying is akin to "a conversation in a private clubhouse doesn't have the same privacy as a conversation in a bedroom" which is true, but that does not matter. Yes, having more people involved means a greater chance of someone simply talking to the police, but the same applies to a single person you had a conversation with in your bedroom. You do not have any legal protection against a person you talked to telling the police/government what you said (with the exception of _very_ specific set of explicitly enumerated cases), regardless of how many people were present. But we are not talking about people voluntarily talking to the police, we're talking about secret police surveillance of a private group. What the police were asking is "can we put bugs in a private clubroom/union hall/church without a warrant?". Also, including what china did in HK in a conversation about rule of law, human rights, etc is simply not relevant by _any_ definition.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > Also, including what china did in HK in a conversation about rule of law, human rights, etc is simply not relevant by _any_ definition. It is , but in another way - we are finding there is little daylight between us and China in terms of surveillance.
      - olliej 3y ago
        We're literally discussing an article in which a court said you need a warrant to surveil people in a group chat, and you're saying their is not a significant gap between that and china (where there is consistent pervasive surveillance of all communication at all times)?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mcbutterbunz 3y ago
Being dumb doesn’t justify having your rights violated.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Being dumb doesn’t justify having your rights violated It’s not eavesdropping if it’s public. You have a right against self incrimination; that doesn’t make confession illegal.
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  Wait I can just publicly say stuff without legal repercussions? I have the worst fn attorneys.
Terr_ 3y ago
> Are these specifically private posts/conversations? IANAL but I think that wasn't questioned/decided yet. Rather the ruling hinged on a question about timing/freshness, and whether the police had to use one legal standard versus another. The state argued that getting a feed on a 15-minute delay made it a request for "stored communication" held by Facebook (subject to lesser requirements) rather than live surveillance... and the court rightly rejected that reasoning as specious.
theptip 3y ago
The first sentence of TFA refers to > disclosure of private social media postings

olliej 3y ago

First paragraph :D > The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that law enforcement must obtain a wiretap to force near-simultaneous disclosure of private social media postings I don't think you're correct to limit it to just DMs, as a private group on Facebook would - to me - be conceptually similar to a clubhouse (or hell even a "business" as MLMs on FB are called :D) or some such. You don't lose the warrant requirement just because it's a group of people vs just 1:1.

noman-land 3y ago
I haven't read it but if it specifies that a warrant is needed for "near-simultaneous" disclosure, is one needed for non-near-simultaneous disclosure?
- olliej 3y ago
  I am so very much not a lawyer so can't answer - all I could do is guess wildly but try and sound authoritative while talking out my *ss :D
  - owlbite 3y ago
    (and you're still probably better than ChatGPT?)
    - olliej 3y ago
      and even if not, at least I won't claim to be correct :D
- willcipriano 3y ago
  I think there was a post on here a while back about people calling Facebook and impersonating the police department saying there is a threat to life, like a kid was kidnapped or something, and getting access to spouses/coworkers/enemies facebook messages. Might at least make that harder to do.
- 3np 3y ago
  TFA says warrant is not sufficient for near-simultaneous (while indeed, it is required for non-near-simultaneous) but a wiretap order is required.
WilTimSon 3y ago
A private group is not the same as DMs on a privacy level, though. Two can keep a secret, not more. I distinctly remember reading about cops socially engineering their way into protest chats in Hong Kong, because when it's a big group of people, it's easier to say "oh yeah, I'm a friend of John's" and get away with it.
- olliej 3y ago
  What you're saying is akin to "a conversation in a private clubhouse doesn't have the same privacy as a conversation in a bedroom" which is true, but that does not matter. Yes, having more people involved means a greater chance of someone simply talking to the police, but the same applies to a single person you had a conversation with in your bedroom. You do not have any legal protection against a person you talked to telling the police/government what you said (with the exception of _very_ specific set of explicitly enumerated cases), regardless of how many people were present. But we are not talking about people voluntarily talking to the police, we're talking about secret police surveillance of a private group. What the police were asking is "can we put bugs in a private clubroom/union hall/church without a warrant?". Also, including what china did in HK in a conversation about rule of law, human rights, etc is simply not relevant by _any_ definition.
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > Also, including what china did in HK in a conversation about rule of law, human rights, etc is simply not relevant by _any_ definition. It is , but in another way - we are finding there is little daylight between us and China in terms of surveillance.
    - olliej 3y ago
      We're literally discussing an article in which a court said you need a warrant to surveil people in a group chat, and you're saying their is not a significant gap between that and china (where there is consistent pervasive surveillance of all communication at all times)?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mcbutterbunz 3y ago

Being dumb doesn’t justify having your rights violated.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Being dumb doesn’t justify having your rights violated It’s not eavesdropping if it’s public. You have a right against self incrimination; that doesn’t make confession illegal.
eyelidlessness 3y ago
Wait I can just publicly say stuff without legal repercussions? I have the worst fn attorneys.

Terr_ 3y ago

> Are these specifically private posts/conversations? IANAL but I think that wasn't questioned/decided yet. Rather the ruling hinged on a question about timing/freshness, and whether the police had to use one legal standard versus another. The state argued that getting a feed on a 15-minute delay made it a request for "stored communication" held by Facebook (subject to lesser requirements) rather than live surveillance... and the court rightly rejected that reasoning as specious.

theptip 3y ago

The first sentence of TFA refers to > disclosure of private social media postings