2 ms·
At first this didn’t make sense but the title is less informative. It’s private Facebook posts. These Facebook messages are going to someone. If the person on
by nashashmi 3y ago
At first this didn’t make sense but the title is less informative. It’s private Facebook posts.
These Facebook messages are going to someone. If the person on the other line is willing to reveal their account to law enforcement, then wiretap should not be needed.
And if a Facebook post is to a private group of all your friends then only if the other people reveal your post, should law enforcement be able to access this. Or if there is a wiretap.
This is rationality restored. Finally.
- lmkg 3y ago> If the person on the other line is willing to reveal their account to law enforcement, then wiretap should not be needed. If Facebook posts count as telephony, then this varies by state. One-party consent vs two-party consent. If you dial up Bob and Bob agrees to let the police listen in, that still requires judicial approval in California. (To use as evidence in prosecution, anyways.) On the other hand if they don't fall into the specific legal definition of what's covered by wiretapping, then they fall into the Third Part Doctrine. Which means that what you're saying applies: you gave your information to another party, you're at their whims of whether that data gets revealed. The linked article is making a strong distinction about wiretapping specifically and the protections around it, from which I infer that everyone agrees facebook messages are legally phone calls, for whatever reason.
- psychphysic 3y agoIt is NJ supreme court so I assume it's the state of New Jersey. What's it like there?
- AdamJacobMuller 3y agoNJ is one-party consent.