8 ms·

Meta-provided FB chats led a woman to plead guilty to abortion-related charges

38 points by yincrash 3y ago

bruceb 3y ago
Meta complies with legal warrant. The end.
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  A warrant they wouldn't be able to comply with if they e2e encrypted their chat.
  - taylodl 3y ago
    ^^^^^^^ THIS!!! But no, Meta wants to sniff your conversations so they can sell you shit. The cost of Meta's advertising is your freedom.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  Draconian, privacy invasive law enforced on woman by discovering her chat history. More people need reminded what can happen to them if they discuss controversial or illegal things on these ubiquitous chat programs.
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    People don't understand that a "private" chat is not the same as "end to end encrypted so that the provider can't see it". Even if messages are set to disappear, they most likely will be logged anyway (Snapchat).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- orochimaaru 3y ago
  I would not hold Meta at fault here. This travesty is basically on every uncompromising anti-abortion activist who have goaded their spineless representatives and government officials to put vulnerable women in this situation. In short, Nebraska government and attorney general are shit bags. The woman and Meta haven't done anything wrong. Meta should however advertise that only WhatsApp chat is E2E encrypted and that anything discussed on Messenger can be obtained via a warrant.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    One can hold both parties responsible. And we should. There are steps they could take, as you have pointed out, that they have not.
- marricks 3y ago
  They help write the law, they dictate most of our lives. When it comes time for them make a moral stand we defend them, "they're just following orders." The only thing they meaningfully punished for is not making money. No wonder our world isn't going great.
- jsisto 3y ago
  Don't use meta products. The end
_a9 3y ago
> The charges include having an abortion after 20 weeks, false reporting, and tampering with human skeletal remains.
- subjectsigma 3y ago
  This article has been posted before under different titles, and somehow everyone conveniently ignores this part. They also like to leave out that abortion in the first trimester is legal in Nebraska: https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abortion-in-nebraska# https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abor...
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    People are mentioning it a lot. "Everybody conveniently ignores X" is a very common form of fallacious meta-argument, especially on divided topics.
    - subjectsigma 3y ago
      [flagged]
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
> Burgess was about 23 weeks along in her pregnancy 23 weeks... I don't know of any country that allows a 23 week abortion.
- jiofj 3y ago
  For reference this is what a 23-week baby looks like: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/baby-premature-transformation-23-weeks-pregnant-mary-parkins-grace-a8289096.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
  - vgt 3y ago
    please elaborate?
  - falcolas 3y ago
    > This is HN, some people here probably advocate for abortion after birth. That’s called murder - the ending of a person, which by the law is a fully born human being. I doubt anybody sane on either side of the political spectrum supports that.
    - HelloMcFly 3y ago
      There are many anti-women's healthcare advocates actually believe that this is what pro-choice individuals want. It's sometimes said as tongue-in-cheek, but there are people that really believe Planned Parenthood wants post-birth abortions to be legal.
      - falcolas 3y ago
        Care of the Fox Entertainment conglomerate. They’ve been claiming this for years now, and their fans eat it up. Another successful story cast as if it were news.
    - michaelsbradley 3y ago
      The politics are messy indeed but see the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the various debates around it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Abortion_Survivors_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Abortion_Survivors_... The history of infanticide and how it was regarded in various places, even into the 20th Century, is complex to say the least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
jgwil2 3y ago
Very odd that FB chat is not using end-to-end encryption by default. Why would you even make this opt-in?
- Supply5411 3y ago
  >Why would you even make this opt-in? Businesses are not your friend
Supply5411 3y ago
The real issue is obviously people are mad that abortion laws are being enforced. If two people were coordinating their intentions to murder their friend and get rid of the body, would you be mad if the company turned over their "private" chats? If no, then it's not a tech/privacy issue at all.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dilap 3y ago
  Well, yes, I would be. Let the state find another way to catch murderers; I would like to retain the ability to have private conversations.
  - Supply5411 3y ago
    >Court and police records show that police began investigating 17-year-old Celeste Burgess and her mother Jessica Burgess after receiving a tip-off that the pair had illegally buried a stillborn child given birth to prematurely by Celeste. The two women told detective Ben McBride of the Norfolk, Nebraska Police Division that they’d discussed the matter on Facebook Messenger, which prompted the state to issue Meta with a search warrant for their chat history and data including log-in timestamps and photos.[1] Police were given a tip. They talked to the women, who then admitted to coordinating the crime over chat. A warrant was issued. No 4th amendment was violated. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/10/23299502/facebook-chat-messenger-history-nebraska-teen-abortion-case https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/10/23299502/facebook-chat-me...
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  It is valid to argue the opinion that some businesses should not record or store chats, or should use E2E encryption. It is also valid to argue the opinion that a law could be beyond a certain threshold of immorality where a business should prefer the risk of a federal lawsuit over complying. It is also valid to argue the opinion opposite to these two opinions. My point being that it is the antithesis of reason to assert that these opinions simply can not be held, or are somehow fundamentally invalid.

38 points by yincrash 3y ago

bruceb 3y ago

Meta complies with legal warrant. The end.

nickthegreek 3y ago
A warrant they wouldn't be able to comply with if they e2e encrypted their chat.
- taylodl 3y ago
  ^^^^^^^ THIS!!! But no, Meta wants to sniff your conversations so they can sell you shit. The cost of Meta's advertising is your freedom.
unethical_ban 3y ago
Draconian, privacy invasive law enforced on woman by discovering her chat history. More people need reminded what can happen to them if they discuss controversial or illegal things on these ubiquitous chat programs.
- theshrike79 3y ago
  People don't understand that a "private" chat is not the same as "end to end encrypted so that the provider can't see it". Even if messages are set to disappear, they most likely will be logged anyway (Snapchat).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
orochimaaru 3y ago
I would not hold Meta at fault here. This travesty is basically on every uncompromising anti-abortion activist who have goaded their spineless representatives and government officials to put vulnerable women in this situation. In short, Nebraska government and attorney general are shit bags. The woman and Meta haven't done anything wrong. Meta should however advertise that only WhatsApp chat is E2E encrypted and that anything discussed on Messenger can be obtained via a warrant.
- falcolas 3y ago
  One can hold both parties responsible. And we should. There are steps they could take, as you have pointed out, that they have not.
marricks 3y ago
They help write the law, they dictate most of our lives. When it comes time for them make a moral stand we defend them, "they're just following orders." The only thing they meaningfully punished for is not making money. No wonder our world isn't going great.
jsisto 3y ago
Don't use meta products. The end

_a9 3y ago

> The charges include having an abortion after 20 weeks, false reporting, and tampering with human skeletal remains.

subjectsigma 3y ago
This article has been posted before under different titles, and somehow everyone conveniently ignores this part. They also like to leave out that abortion in the first trimester is legal in Nebraska: https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abortion-in-nebraska# https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abor...
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  People are mentioning it a lot. "Everybody conveniently ignores X" is a very common form of fallacious meta-argument, especially on divided topics.
  - subjectsigma 3y ago
    [flagged]

tick_tock_tick 3y ago

> Burgess was about 23 weeks along in her pregnancy 23 weeks... I don't know of any country that allows a 23 week abortion.

jiofj 3y ago
For reference this is what a 23-week baby looks like: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/baby-premature-transformation-23-weeks-pregnant-mary-parkins-grace-a8289096.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
- vgt 3y ago
  please elaborate?
- falcolas 3y ago
  > This is HN, some people here probably advocate for abortion after birth. That’s called murder - the ending of a person, which by the law is a fully born human being. I doubt anybody sane on either side of the political spectrum supports that.
  - HelloMcFly 3y ago
    There are many anti-women's healthcare advocates actually believe that this is what pro-choice individuals want. It's sometimes said as tongue-in-cheek, but there are people that really believe Planned Parenthood wants post-birth abortions to be legal.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      Care of the Fox Entertainment conglomerate. They’ve been claiming this for years now, and their fans eat it up. Another successful story cast as if it were news.
  - michaelsbradley 3y ago
    The politics are messy indeed but see the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the various debates around it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Abortion_Survivors_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Abortion_Survivors_... The history of infanticide and how it was regarded in various places, even into the 20th Century, is complex to say the least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

jgwil2 3y ago

Very odd that FB chat is not using end-to-end encryption by default. Why would you even make this opt-in?

Supply5411 3y ago
>Why would you even make this opt-in? Businesses are not your friend

Supply5411 3y ago

The real issue is obviously people are mad that abortion laws are being enforced. If two people were coordinating their intentions to murder their friend and get rid of the body, would you be mad if the company turned over their "private" chats? If no, then it's not a tech/privacy issue at all.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dilap 3y ago
Well, yes, I would be. Let the state find another way to catch murderers; I would like to retain the ability to have private conversations.
- Supply5411 3y ago
  >Court and police records show that police began investigating 17-year-old Celeste Burgess and her mother Jessica Burgess after receiving a tip-off that the pair had illegally buried a stillborn child given birth to prematurely by Celeste. The two women told detective Ben McBride of the Norfolk, Nebraska Police Division that they’d discussed the matter on Facebook Messenger, which prompted the state to issue Meta with a search warrant for their chat history and data including log-in timestamps and photos.[1] Police were given a tip. They talked to the women, who then admitted to coordinating the crime over chat. A warrant was issued. No 4th amendment was violated. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/10/23299502/facebook-chat-messenger-history-nebraska-teen-abortion-case https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/10/23299502/facebook-chat-me...
happytoexplain 3y ago
It is valid to argue the opinion that some businesses should not record or store chats, or should use E2E encryption. It is also valid to argue the opinion that a law could be beyond a certain threshold of immorality where a business should prefer the risk of a federal lawsuit over complying. It is also valid to argue the opinion opposite to these two opinions. My point being that it is the antithesis of reason to assert that these opinions simply can not be held, or are somehow fundamentally invalid.