cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1874605
A 17-year-old from Nebraska and her mother are facing criminal charges including performing an illegal abortion and concealing a dead body after police obtained the pair’s private chat history from Facebook, court documents published by Motherboard show.
To the people shitting on the idea of a default defederation with Meta, how about we deferedate not because it will affect us as posters but because they are evil pieces of shit?
yeah, the difference is pretty stark:
- lemmy: we’ll give you a way to dm anyone on site, but please don’t use that, if you set up an app on this other open source service we’re not affiliated with (which is basically an encrypted discord) we’ll do our best to make it as seamless for you as possible. we’ll keep warning you for your own privacy.
- meta/facebook: aggressively keeps you on-platform for spying purposes; literally killed xmpp a decade ago and they’ll fuckin do it again (if we let them)
They trust me. Dumb fucks.
- Mark Zuckerberg
(yes it sounds like satire but that’s a real quote)
The Lemmy DM is imo actually quite important. If I want to get in touch with someone about a post, nothing more. It is an easy option, and serves a purpose. It isn’t imo meant to be used for anything else.
yep, it’s important that we have this capability, but it’s also nice that unlike other platforms that do their best to lock you in, lemmy actively pushes you toward a safer alternative
What’s the name of that safer alternative?
Matrix, which is pretty much an encrypted and open-source Discord clone (at least in the same fashion as Lemmy would be a Reddit clone). I personally use Element to interact with it and have a matrix.org account, but Matrix is just like the fediverse, you can choose any instance or client you want, or even host an instance yourself. In your Lemmy settings you can set up your Matrix user, right below your email address as of 0.18.1, and if you do, a new buttons saying “send secure message” will show up on your profile, next to “send message”, which will redirect people trying to message you to Matrix.
A mail laden swallow.
I mean I agree with Zuck on that one.
Was it Facebook that killed xmpp or Google? Legitimately asking because I’ve always seen that blamed on Google.
It was Google, they Embraced, Extended, and Extinguished it with Google Chat. Then they killed that themselves.
google does seem to be the main culprit, but facebook still played a role as far as i’m aware. these two companies also colluded a lot so i wouldn’t trust either of them with anything federated
Yeah they can both get fucked. Cheers
XMPP was never alive lol
literally killed xmpp a decade ago
This was Google/Alphabet.
How on earth did Meta kill XMPP, where is that even from lol. They didn’t even have a standalone messaging app until 2011, which is after Google Talk dropped support for XMPP.
Some game-of-telephone misinformation originating from this article - though it has gone from Google killed it (which this article states), to it was a protocol that allowed Facebook and Google to communicate and then got killed, to Facebook killed it.
I don’t even agree that Google killed it, because it’s simply a messaging protocol, it doesn’t “die”. Maybe you could try to argue that Google killed Jabber, but I used Jabber back in the early 00s, pretty much nobody else did lol, almost all IM communication was done over MSN Messenger. Google Talk brought XMPP “users” and they left when Google sunsetted Talk in favour of Hangouts. Facebook Messenger used XMPP for a time, so if anything they “revived” it (they didn’t, it was never dead), but, like all the other messaging apps, they moved to their own proprietary version to add their own features.
This is what XMPP was actually designed for, the X literally means “eXtensible”, whether it’s extended open source or into proprietary versions.
I feel like there’s a lot of anti-tech misinformation on Lemmy and it’s great to be skeptical, but honestly I think we waste a ton of time being easily ragebait’d into the wrong shit.
Discord killed Compuserve!
Video killed the radio star!
You bastards!
my understanding was that while google is the main culprit, facebook and google both played a big part in killing it. but since we’re discussing meta/facebook here, and they’re not blameless, i focused on that.
but yeah, fuck google too.
they’re not blameless
I think we should try to do better here and provide actual reasoning to our statements instead of unbridled rage, regardless of the topic, because this isn’t valuable content. I work in an adjacent industry and I believe that a lot of what people have said lately about this topic is overly sensationalized and I don’t mind discussing it, but “fuck Meta/Google because they’re evil” is subjective as hell and gets us nowhere except back to Reddit culture.
This discussion pyramid was a good post from the other day:
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b48a0a91-c7a3-4cc5-a117-6deceedde205.png
Your comments are “ad hominem” at best.
Saying distrust is an ad hominem is one of the takes ever, lol. And that’s what all of this boils down to, trust. Do we trust Meta with not exploiting all of our data, and turning it against us at the earliest opportunity? Do we trust Meta that they want to contribute to the fediverse, and not just hurt it because it’s a competitor?
By the same logic, blocking or banning a person instead of vetting every post and comment of theirs would also be an ad hominem. But at the end of the day, it’s just practical. Meta has a long and not so proud history of being extremely anti-consumer, and shoving that track record under the rug, trying to absolve them of responsibility and consequences for their actions, under the thought-terminating cliche of an ad hominem is neither productive nor practical.
Yes, people are mad at Meta, and yes, the distrust means their actions are scrutinized more than they otherwise would be, but that doesn’t mean that their actions aren’t actually massively anti-consumer, and that they aren’t a massive liability. In this particular case, you can make the argument that they had a legal obligation to hand over the data, had they not tried to build a walled garden with no privacy they wouldn’t have had the data to hand over to begin with.
(also, unrelated: you can embed images using the
syntax, and you can even add alt text in the brackets to help users with screen readers)I think the simpler answer is more likely to be correct. The Fediverse isn’t big enough to really bother Meta, but ActivityPub is a convenient way to seem cool, so they’ll partially support it as long as it doesn’t cost them all that much. Once the marketing gimmick has run it’s course, they’ll drop it.
I think the same was true for XMPP. I don’t think they planned to kill XMPP and I don’t think they plan to kill ActivityPub. But they did kill XMPP, and they’ll probably kill ActivityPub by accident as well when they support it just well enough to pull people over.
So I’m not worried about some Meta conspiracy to kill ActivityPub, I’m worried about getting steamrolled on accident for a similar reason that people don’t want to share locations of where they took pictures: they don’t want the big mass of people coming to destroy something unique.
So my recommendation is to push for making everything E2E encrypted by default, and have every message cryptographically signed by the contributor. If there’s something ad companies hate it’s privacy, and that’s what we should be pursuing. I’m not sure how that works for Lemmy, but surely there’s a way for instances to manage who can decrypt messages.
Saying distrust is an ad hominem is one of the takes ever, lol.
It is literally ad hominem, that is the definition. We aren’t discussing whether we can trust Meta or not, we’re discussing a specific topic.
By the same logic, blocking or banning a person instead of vetting every post and comment of theirs would also be an ad hominem.
It definitely is, but again, we aren’t discussing a person or an entity, we’re discussing a topic related to that person or entity. This isn’t a discussion on whether Meta should be defederated or not, frankly that’s simple, just join an instance that defederates with Meta or don’t, or build your own! There’s a ton of freedom here.
And I’m not saying ad hominem arguments can’t be used, but when an argument is entirely made up of ad hominem points while discussing a specific topic it isn’t a good argument.
Also, side note, as for trust I definitely don’t think we can trust corporate entities, but I also don’t think we can entirely trust the Fediverse as it exists already. We know there’s been an influx of bot accounts, moderation tools aren’t great yet, and every platform attracts bad actors.
(also, unrelated: you can embed images using the
syntax, and you can even add alt text in the brackets to help users with screen readers)Thanks for the tip! Haven’t been able to get that working well here, I think I was missing the exclamation mark.
in a thread where we’re discussing how meta helped religiofascists violate someone’s human rights “meta is evil” is a summary, not an ad hominem
That’s literally nowhere in this chain of comments.
but “fuck Meta/Google because they’re evil” is subjective as hell and gets us nowhere except back to Reddit culture.
That’s true. A lot of Reddit culture is cringe as well
Abstraction is a cancer to society. Their comment was not ad hominem, yours however is hairsplitting to give rise to a conflict that never existed. If you are trying to correct misinformation, you do not really seem that articulate in conveying your word.
Fine, their comments are nonsense that aren’t based in reality and the Fediverse and it’s communities will suffer the fate of every other echo chamber shithole social media if it’s moderators don’t take action and make a conscious decision to tackle misinformation, regardless of whether or not it fits their personal bias. Better?
Yeah Google is more to blame for that. When they defedarated it was pretty much the end of XMPP. From what I remember, Facebook used the protocol but never opened their service for federation.
That was a quote from 13 years ago when he didn’t know how massive his enterprise would become. People change.
As for him, he became more evil.
People change, but the Zuck clearly isn’t people. My money is on time-traveling robot.
I bet lizard man personally, he just feels slimy a reptilian.
And even if what I do is relatively tame, I want others to be protected from the wolf at the door.
This. I don’t need to win, I just want Meta to lose.
General Hux!
Are you saying that the individuals who run these servers and instances aren’t subject to the same laws? I read the article, and Facebook complied with a court order.
You don’t think anyone running Lemmy would do the same without access to lawyers and capital like Facebook has?
Do you have to run your lemmy instance in the US?
Maybe do it in a less backward place
Not disagreeing with you there.
Every interaction on Lemmy is copied to all other federated instances. There are instances all over the world with a copy of yours and my comment. They can track and use those comments for any purpose. Its both a blessing and a curse of an open federated structure.
they can also scrape them. that’s not really the point.
people can dm on lemmy, and only the two instances that host the people on either end of the dm (which may even be the same instance) store that dm. that instance may actually receive a subpoena. but all of this is heavily discouraged by the lemmy interface itself, instead prompting people to set up a matrix account instead, and matrix chats are end-to-end encrypted.
Its a social platfrom. Dont use it for personal communications.
And how can we be sure that all the instances federated with any instance we participate on aren’t run by law enforcement themselves? I’d be surprised if there aren’t running instances by every major investigative agency themselves.
This is why everyone should take steps to protect their privacy. You don’t have to go 0-100 overnight. Just audit yourself and do a few things now. Keep those habits up. Then audit and add a few more things, repeat.
I need to do this myself, I’ve been slipping
Almost all countries have similar systems for obtaining evidence. These people were criminals, they broke the law and the legal system worked as designed to bring them to “justice”. Meta was just a pawn here with very little influence.
If this story was about a murder rather than an abortion people would think that Meta did the right thing to bring the murderer to justice. As I see it the problem is that people disagree with the law and are using Meta as a scapegoat. But you don’t fix stupid laws by having corporations go vigilante. I’d rather not have billionaires coming up with their own set of laws, that is a recipe for disaster. I think we need to fix the laws, which will fix the root cause of this issue.
Also use E2EE for all private information, cryptography can’t be compelled to reveal your private data by a court order.
Do you think people who collaborated with dictatorial regimes should be excused? Because they followed the law?
Why didnt Meta implant E2EE on their private chat service then?
This is what I can agree with. We could blame Meta for encouraging people to give them data. Messenger does actually have E2EE encryption (apparently) but it is quite hidden and limited in functionality. If they made it the default this wouldn’t have been a position they ended up in, and they could have responded to the warrant with “We have no information matching this request.”
If they truly encrypted all chats, they would lose their value to them since its unreadable to meta as well.
Because they use what you say to tagert ads and keep a record of who you are. That’s how they make money.
Which goes back to… You’re just a product. Stop using large platforms for personal shit. That’s their business model, how is it evil if most people know these companies rely on stealing as much information from you as they legally can AND they still use them.
Lemmy promotes using Matrix, which is a separate service, so instance admins don’t need to be in the business of hosting private conversations.
Matrix is end-to-end encrypted so even the admins of your Matrix server could not provide your chats to law enforcement.
I wish Lemmy was as well. Ah well.
It’s not really possible as long as Lemmy is a website. E2EE works on Matrix because it’s an app, and therefore it can manage your encryption keys in ways a browser cannot do for you. (You can save things in the client, but not in a reliable enough way for something like the master key for every communication you ever had that if you lose you get locked out of all your chat history.) In the case of Lemmy, the signing keys for your federated actions are handled by the server, which is perfectly fine for 99% of what you use Lemmy for (public posts and comments), but it also means that even if they implemented E2EE for chats, the keys to decrypt the convo would be right on the same server.
That’s why Lemmy actively pushes you to set up a Matrix account, because Matrix makes better tradeoffs for the purposes of messaging, while Lemmy’s tradeoffs are more relevant to a link aggregator style social media.
Matrix is also a website and you don’t need an app to use it. The first time I used Matrix, I didn’t use an app, I merely signed in on a browser window (in my case, Mozilla’s instance). I first signed up on my work laptop, then later signed in on my desktop and had to confirm the new account on my laptop before my desktop would work with the same account.
The more devices it’s on the better, but it’s totally usable with just one web client. I now also have the phone app, but I didn’t at first.
If Matrix can do that, lemmy can as well. It would probably degrade the user experience because you’d need a decryption step for every post and comment you load (just like loading a new Matrix room), but it is technically possible.
I’m not necessarily asking for every comment to be encrypted, I just think it would be a good idea for DMs to be encrypted using keys the admin doesn’t have access to. It would be cool for communities to allow encryption as an option as well (i.e. all posts and comments would be E2E encrypted to all members, and not viewable unless you join), but it shouldn’t be the default everywhere.
Complying with the law is less of an issue than keeping that data accessible in the first place.
But also fuck these laws and the people passing them and the people voting for the people passing them. They’re the real evil.
We have to always assume rich corporations are going to do whatever serves their best interest. It’s nature. Like a mantis is gonna bite off her mate’s head when they’re done mating. It’s up to governing factors to keep them in check. On that note, +1 to defederate. They will cannibalize or however abuse Lemmy if it will make them a penny.
I think we’re realizing more and more any corporate-operated platform is luring us in to sell to us and sell us.
Ya. That’s fucked. Just ruin someone’s life like that. Holy fuck.
I vote to write this reasoning at the very top, on the sticked topics when it happens. Like, literally just write “Because Facebook is evil” and don’t elaborate.
Plus, if someone shows up being a concern troll on the point, they will laser focus on it, taking the bait, we can all just block the person, a world improved.
Any Lemmy instance would have given over the same information in this case. Meta was complying with a valid, legal search warrant.
If some fuckstick from Nebraska asked me to snitch on my users for something which isn’t a crime in my state, I would simply tell them to fuck themselves, go ahead, and try to have me extradited. If my instance were bordering on a trillion dollars market cap, I’d hire a fucking lawyer.
You sound tough.
No you wouldn’t.
Because it will bring more people to the fedi while bringing a ton more content, support and development. How are people this blind still?
Give the choice to the users and don’t decide what you think is best for them.
Just yesterday here on Lemmy, I mentioned the dangers of violating privacy, and some commenters went on about “what dangers?” Implying there were none…
Is it not enough to gesture broadly?
People are getting all upset at Facebook/Meta here but they were served a valid warrant. I don’t think there is much to get mad about them here. The takeaway I get is this:
Avoid giving data to others. No matter how trustworthy they are (not that Meta is) they can be legally compelled to release it. Trust only in cryptography.
There is of course the other question of if abortion being illegal is a policy that most people agree with…but that is a whole different kettle of fish that I won’t get into here.
America is a terrifying church with guns. I pity the citizens.
Regardless of what you think about abortion laws people just gotta come to terms with the fact that your phone and computer are not reliable partners in crime
I’m almost certain that if something like this happened to any fediverse instance - that a local police enforcement would contact the admin and asked for user’s data, which they are required by law to provide or they would go to jail/get a hefty fine and possibly a criminal record, they would do that too. That’s also why E2E is required, to prevent such problems for instance admins - but then again, there’s really nothing you can do against local law, and if it requires that you have to be able to cooperate, well… Then there’s not much the admin can do, without putting himself in a real risk of prosecution, because he is breaking the law by have E2E.
That’s also a good reason to be careful when selecting your home instance, and making sure that you choose one in a country that has all right laws in that regard.
Of course, that’s assuming the police makes contact. I don’t suppose that the admins would be searching through the DMs of people to snitch on them. And if Meta is doing that preemtively and is actively snitching on people - that’s downright evil.
the fediverse is not meant to be private…
EDIT: I though you are replying to the comment about just hosting single-user instances, and assumed that you meant that if everyone had their own single use private instances, it would be against the fediverse idea. Sorry about that.
I wouldn’t say that’s making the fediverse private - it’s only making my personal account and data about what I visit private. That’s what the ActivityPub protocol is for, and the more I think about it, the more I hope that some kind of app would show up - one that would be designed to just act as a personal front-end for the Fediverse, which would allow you to interact as a user from your instance with others, but also one that would keep all of your data, which are currently at mercy of your instance admins, at your personal instance.
Of course, you still need people to host instances that are actually made for communities and content, and that’s what Lemmy or Mastodon is designed for - but I’d like to see a Fediverse app that isn’t made for hosting content, but only for letting you interact with other instances. There’s no drawback - quite the contrary, instance admins don’t have to deal with and take care of my private data, because my instance is handling all of that, while I still will be providing content for their instance. I think that definitely fits into the idea of what Fediverse should be.
The only thing I’m not sure about yet is if it’s possible - if I create a Post on an instance that’s not my home, who is hosting the data? Do I only send ActivityPub Create Post with the data and the instance then saves it, or do I create the post on my own instance, send an ID, and if someone requests the Post data on the instance I posted to, it will be requested from mine? Because if it’s the first one, then such a client that only implements DMs, your own user account, and a frontend for showing posts on other instances would be doable. And definitely something important, because it solves the biggest privacy issues of Lemmy right now. I see no drawback in that - the only data I would not be in control of are the ones I post to other instances, but that’s ok. And even if you would be the one hosting it, all it means is that it would be a little bit harder do host it yourself.
Also, if I understand the ActivityPub right, if you’re ok with not getting notifications or DMs, your personal instance wouldn’t even need to be online at all times, since you only request data about communities and posts when you are browsing. But this would depend on whether the content and comments are hosted at your instance, or at the instance you are commenting or posting to.
I really like this idea. And from what I’ve seen of the ActivityPub protocol, it should even be that hard, aside from the UI.
Generally, choose any instance hosted in European Union and you should be good to go.
I hear what you’re saying. We have to take to the sea. We should all pitch in and make a mega instance that floats on international waters.
Why one? Let’s make several instances that float in international waters!!
I honestly think the trick for E2EE is to just collect so little, that even by complying, you can’t give them very much. That trick has worked really well for Signal in the past.
Single user instance locally hosted, is the only way forward
Hmm, that actually sounds like a great idea. Does it actually need to be reachable from the outside, if you don’t want to host any of your own communities on it? Or will it be enough for the instance to just pool data? Apart from no-one being able to contact you via DM, that is.
I’ll look into it, having my own home instance actually sounds pretty easy and it may work.
Actually - wouldn’t it even be possible to build a browser extension for that? One that just simulates ActivityPub calls, and you just browse on someone else’s instance without logging in while still allowing you to comment or vote on your behalf?
EDIT: I’ve posted some more thoughs about it to another comment, which I assumed was a reply to this one. The more I think about it, the more I really like the idea of a self-hosted front-end for Fediverse apps that doesn’t host communities, but only user interactions and allows you to interact with other apps and instances.
I think a cell phone is more than enough for one user, probably 100 users would still be fine. With a store and forward proxy even the momentary disconnections would cause missed messages nor notification
Most important is, a content discovery and sorting now lives on your device
An extension would be cool! I’m currently trying to do something similar, in some sense; I’ve patched my instance to filter out DB results from public queries so that only my posts and comments are visible (unless I am logged in).
The only thing I’m not sure about yet is if it’s possible - if I create a Post on an instance that’s not my home, who is hosting the data? Do I only send ActivityPub Create Post with the data and the instance then saves it, or do I create the post on my own instance, send an ID, and if someone requests the Post data on the instance I posted to, it will be requested from mine?
I believe it might be possible, but I’m not sure. It seems that the protocol itself is mostly geared for synchronizing data and distributing updates. From my limited understanding, servers follow users or communities on other servers, which inform those servers that updates should be sent to the requesting inbox. These updates are then used to build up a local copy of the remote page. In the case of a remote community, users interact with their local copy and notify the remote community of those changes.
For example, I am viewing a local copy of this post that I received from lemmy.ml, and my reply to your comment will be stored locally. My server will notify lemmy.ml of this comment (including its contents), and lemmy.ml will notify my inbox if anyone interacts with it (because I am a follower).
It seems that at least some of this syncing might not be necessary… a lightweight frontend could rely on the API of each site it connects with to build up the activities it sends. However, this would probably cause some unnecessary traffic, as such a follower would both receive updates and query the API. Also it would probably break some things, such as
ap_id(see the multicolored fedilink icon, which points the original copy of the content on my instance).
The federation API isn’t using E2E either. It makes no difference if you use your mobile client to contact the mobile API or if you’re hosting your own instance to use the federation API in safety regards. You should always be aware that every message / post / image you publish (even in a closed group) in the internet could be traced back to you and with enough afford be available to anybody with the right skills.
Only end to end encryption can help you there - this is the way.
Is it even possible to implement E2E in the context of ActivtyPub? I mean, as far as I know, the federation doesn’t specify what content you send, only activities, groups and object definitions. There’s nothing stopping you from making the actual data E2E encrypted, altough making it so would be a hard problem.
On the other hand… As I’ve mused about in the other comments, it should be possible to create a fediverse app that serves as a self-hosted front-end for interacting with different fediverse apps. All of your personal data would live on it, and you are in full control. Which would also allow for a safe implementation of E2E, because you just publish your public key, and know that since the app is under your control, noone can get to it. However, this would mean that the other users whould have to use the same standart.
I actually really like that idea. If we can separate users from servers with content, so Lemmy instances would only host posts and comments, but DMs would be handled by the private user instances, it would make Fediverse a lot more private.
The only question standing in the way is - who hosts the content of the posts I make? If my home is programming.dev, and I post to lemmy.ml, do I send the post data through ActivityPub to Lemmy to host, or do I host in on programming.dev, and Lemmy.ml just gets the ID of the post? If it’s first one, making the self-hosted user frontend will be easy, since all you need is a few API calls to make posts, and the only storage you need is for DMs and your account details (which may actually static, so a faked webpage returning your data may suffice). If it’s the latter, then it will be a lot more difficult to easily self-host.
There is also the question of trust: The best solution should be an infrastructure that is due to E2E not able to read the messages it processes. The problem with this setup is, that you want to communicate publicly and you never know, who is part of your communication. I would advice to use signal or matrix if you need E2E. If not, use either Tor to proxy lemmy and try to stay anonymous or be aware, that your messages are not (which is always the best approach in my opinion).
Yes however they can’t get your phone without nearly as easily as a third party’s data
Is this practical? How technically difficult is it? What are the hardware requirements?
Any potato that can run a docker container. I’d say for 1 user that’s going to be under 1gb ram and 1 vcpu
PSA: I’m neither American nor a lawyer, but AFAIK, US law forbids the indiscriminate investigation of foreign individuals to prosecute US citizens, so having your account in a foreign instance is one more layer of protection.
Have you heard of the CLOUD act?
E2E is technically illegal for any interstate communications in the USA, since refusal to comply with a wiretap order will put you in jail for contempt, regardless of whether the medium allows for interception or not.
How do communication apps get away with E2E in the US then? Is there a backdoor that allow for companies to comply or does law enforcement seek alternative means of obtaining the information?
There aren’t any US based e2e messaging or voice services as far as I know.
deleted by creator
Yeah, that sounds pretty on-brand for Meta
They are just complying with the law here. As much as I don’t think Meta are great people I’d rather that they follow the law than make their own decisions. Of course we should also consider fixing these laws, but that isn’t really Meta’s responsibility.
Law enforcement will knock on the doors of Fediverse servers and there will need to be some monetary fund for legal fees.
If law enforcement knocks on my door with a valid warrant I’m going to comply. It would be nice to have some legal assistance to help validate the warrant but at the end of the day in this case it was almost certainly valid.
If this was about a murder rather than abortion people would be applauding Meta for helping catch the murderer. I think what people are actually mad about is the law, and they are using Meta as a scapegoat.
But at the end of the day E2EE is the best solution here. Don’t give private data to others, they can’t be trusted because they can be compelled by the law.
And this is one thing that people don’t seem to understand about Lemmy et al. If you post messages (including DM’s) on any one host, that message will be duplicated to any federated hosts. In most cases the only encryption would be in transit, so all it takes is for one of those hosts to be in a jurisdiction where the local authorities can seize the data, hackers can infiltrate poorly secured server, etc
If you are worried about the privacy/security of your data, it’s not really any safer here then on Reddit or Facebook etc. It may be more resistant to corporate influence but at the same time a kind citizen running a node is less likely to have money to fight legal action and warrants.
Yes. You really should treat anything you post on Lemmy (or anywhere else that isn’t E2E Encrypted) as public.
This is also why Lemmy recommends against using Lemmy direct messages and recommends Matrix with E2EE instead.
Just wondering (INAL): if these women would have been using e2ee, could the police not legally require them to let them read it
Edit: I mean would the women not be required to let the police read the e2ee?
IANAL but it depends. In the US there is strong protection for the contents of your mind and self-incrimination. So if your keys were locked behind a strong password the legal system wouldn’t be able to access it. But if you had no password they would be able to seize the device and read the messages.
So basically if the messages are inaccessible other than a secret that you know them yes, they wouldn’t be forced to reveal it.
(Also not a Lawyer) I’m not familiar with the laws in Nebraska, but they wouldn’t be able to get the messages from Meta. They would need to get on the devices, but it seemed like the people charged themselves tipped off about using Messenger to the police. The only other way to get E2EE message from a device without consent is with the use of force.
From the article:
However, campaigners note that Meta always has to comply with legal requests for data, and that the company can only change this if it stops collecting that data in the first place. In the case of Celeste and Jessica Burgess, this would have meant making end-to-end encryption (E2EE) the default in Facebook Messenger. This would have meant that police would have had to gain access to the pair’s phones directly to read their chats. (E2EE is available in Messenger but has to be toggled on manually. It’s on by default in WhatsApp.)
(…)
However, private chat messages are only one component in a whole range of digital evidence that is likely to be used by police to prosecute illegal abortions in the United States. Investigators will be able to request access to many data sources, including digital health records, Google search history, text messages, and phone location data.
For the murder example, remember Apple being in the news for not providing the FBI access via a backdoor in the OS to the San Bernardino shooter’s phone? There were plenty of people on both sides of that argument saying they should or shouldn’t comply. That’s why it’s essential for E2EE to maintain privacy
If the oberstgruppenfuhrer of the schutsstaffel came to your house and asked where the juden were hiding and had a valid order, would you show them the attic?
She was 7 months pregnant. It was a murder.
Single sentence “hot takes” like this help no one. They only serve as dopamine hits for people who agree with your statement already.
What else is there to add? The baby has been baking for 7 months. If you are okay with aborting babies 7 months into pregnancy there is something seriously fucked up with your head.
Chill, I’m not, but that’s not really relevant here.
People who think it’s a fetus and not a baby aren’t going to be convinced by you just being upset. If you look at most comments, 7 months vs 1 week is meaningless to anyone who hasn’t had a kid.
Spell it out more if you want any chance whatsoever of getting through to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you:
Fetuses are viable outside the womb at 24 weeks, roughly 5.5 months. This person could have had an abortion legally and safely at any point during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, but instead waited 8 weeks further and did it ad-hoc and unsafely.
A fetus isn’t a person, it was an abortion.
Look, I’m not making a morality judgement here, but this is greatly oversimplifying things. Fetuses are considered generally viable outside the womb at 24 weeks (5.5 months).
This abortion occurred at 7 months. This could have been a person if labor was induced or a c-section had been performed at the time instead of an abortion. I have a hard time believing that doesn’t or shouldn’t have an effect on the discussion.
Hard line, single sentence takes like yours or the comment you were responding to help no one. They offer no room for nuance, for consideration of unique situations, to fit in with the complex reality we all live in. They can’t convince anyone on the other side and don’t further depth of thought in those in agreement.
They offer a cheap dopemine hit for people already in agreement with you, further encourage polarization of opinions, and general tribalism. It’s useless preaching to the choir that only further entrenches hardline stances and decreases the likelyhood for discussion, compromise, or anything vital to surviving and interacting with others in reality.
Again, not making a judgement on fetuses, personhood, or abortion one way or another. My partner was born at 6 months and given up for adoption. Conversely I have a close friend who got pregnant from a one night stand nearly a decade ago, decided to keep it despite that being quite possibly the worst choice for her at the time, and her life has been in the shitter since with no signs towards improvement. I see both sides of this.
I just refuse the idea that anything as complicated as the question of “When does personhood begin?” can be broken down into asinine hot takes by either side.
The rights of the already birthed person (you know, the one who’s body you are trying to police) should have considerably more weight than the rights of an unborn fetus.
At 7 months it isn’t a fetus…
Yes it is. It is called and considered a fetus up until birth.
Disagree. No one was hurt here. The fact that the baby could have lived means nothing. The mothers body is her own, and the choice was hers and only hers.
If the baby is capable of surviving outside of the womb then how is nobody hurt exactly? And she still gave birth to the thing, as it was a still birth. She killed it and then passed it. Literally the only thing she did here was kill the baby, all else is the same.
It is her body not yours. Just because a woman carries a foetus she doesn’t suddenly lose rights towards her own body.
What year is it
1984
1984 indeed…
However, private chat messages are only one component in a whole range of digital evidence that is likely to be used by police to prosecute illegal abortions in the United States. Investigators will be able to request access to many data sources, including digital health records, Google search history, text messages, and phone location data.
1684
This is what “Freedom & Family” means, apparently!
She was 7 months pregnant. That baby is viable outside the womb in many scenarios. It’s disgusting to abort a child at that point. The local law allows abortions up to 5 months into the pregnancy (20 weeks). That’s plenty of time to make a decision, and a pretty liberal allowance. Prosecution of this mother and daughter is justified and there is nothing wrong with Meta complying with the info request.
The article:
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.
From Motherboard (where you also can read court documents):
The state’s case relies on evidence from the teenager’s private Facebook messages, obtained directly from Facebook by court order, which show the mother and daughter allegedly bought medication to induce abortion online, and then disposed of the body of the fetus.
According to court records, Celeste Burgess, 17, and her mother, Jessica Burgess, bought medication called Pregnot designed to end pregnancy. Pregnot is a kit of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is often used to safely end pregnancy in the first trimester. In this case, Burgess was 28-weeks pregnant, which is later in pregnancy than mifepristone and misoprostol are recommended for use. It’s also later than Nebraska’s 20-week post-fertilization abortion ban, which makes allowances only if the pregnant person is at risk of death or “serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” (Nebraska’s abortion laws have not changed since Roe v Wade was overturned).
Right, which is exactly what I said…
Yes, I’m not arguing or anything, I forgot to mention I appreciated the added context you provided. Just wanted to further expand on it for those wanting to get more context, as it seems to be a lot of people in the thread that didn’t read the article
Thanks for adding some nuance that people might miss if they just read the headline. This girl broke some long established abortion laws by aborting at 7 months like you said. She is definitely in the wrong here.
At the same time, I don’t like meta for violating people’s privacy and working with law enforcement. Make law enforcement do their own jobs.
Still, I don’t feel sorry for them. These women definitely dug their own hole. You think it would be obvious to people by now to not talk about illegal things on any social media, especially meta.
You would want to force a 17 year old (or any person) to go through pregnancy and childbirth because you personally feel that’s the right thing to do? What about her rights? Does she lose them by getting impregnated? Because that’s what you are wanting to enforce.
No not at all. Just don’t get an abortion at 7 months. Literally doctors won’t do it because it’s unethical at that point. Did you even read the article? Like she took a bunch of drugs illegally to abort a fetus that could just about live outside the womb.
I am extremely pro choice, but we have a cutoff point for it that science has established to prevent cruelty.
But why is that a choice society makes for her body? I have asked that elsewhere but never get an answer from people who feel women should be forced to childbirth at a certain point: do you think people should be forced to donate organs?
I don’t know why you are bringing up forced childbirth. I already said I was pro choice, and I am even antinatalist.
She made the choice to not abort until 7 months. Thats the problem here. At a certain point the fetus is considered a human and you cross the line into murder. Medical science has determined that point to be around 5- 6 months. I believe women should have every right to abort before the point the fetus is considered conscious.
When someone is pregnant, at a certain point they have made a human, and you cant just get rid of it like that. There are other options like adoption at that point. I don’t know why you can’t see the nuance here.
It is still forced childbirth, obviously, because what else are you suggesting? You think after a certain point in pregnancy a woman should have to birth the child so others can adopt it. After a certain point you think the woman loses the right to chose for her own and now society has the right to dictate that she has to continue being pregnant and birth the child. I think it is important to fully realize that this is the consequence of your reasoning.
The baby was nearly fully formed with a face, hands, feet, and a heartbeat that could have survived outside the womb. I implore you to go look up some photos of a 28 week fetus and I guarantee you’ll be surprised how much it looks like a normal baby.
I’m trying, but it seems that unfortunately Lemmy is yet another platform chock full of people so hard left that they downvote an opinion that 7 months pregnant is a bit too far along to have an abortion… it’s insane to me that 7 months is even a debate. I’m pro-abortion up to a point. That point starts to become concerning after the first trimester. This baby was in the third trimester…
Also, meta was served a search warrant. They were required by law to comply.
Why should we continue birthing children when we already have so many that are insufficiently cared for?
If you, personally, would assume responsibility for this child, great, but otherwise leave it up to the individual.
The morality of having children at all is a separate point entirely. There are countless ways this could have ended or been prevented long before the fetus was viable outside the womb.
Pregnancy can never be 100 % prevented. Unless you sterilise someone. And you do not know the reasons for why this girl didn’t go through abortion earlier.
It’s disgusting to wish on women that they should lose the rights to their own bodies that easily.
She carried the baby to nearly full term. It had a face, hands, feet, and a heartbeat. It was a living being that could have survived outside the womb. Then she took abortion medication that wasn’t meant for pregnancies that far along. I’m not even religious and have always been pro-abortion, but there needs to be a reasonable cut-off point. In 2 and half more months she could have given it up for adoption.
And y’all thought China having your data was something to be afraid of.
Curious why you are so comfortable with that?
I never said I was comfortable with it, but you clearly missed the point I was making.
Worry about what data is being harvested in your own country where a law change can suddenly put you in danger of being arrested before worrying about China having some of your data.
Is it bad how much data the Chinese govt get from you using apps like Tik Tok or phones made by Huawei? Sure, but the threat is a lot closer to home than you think as this article shows.
Here’s a novel concept - we’re against our government doing it too, obviously. I don’t know why you think we wouldn’t be, this is the stupidest divorced from reality gotcha take
Lol get it all out bro.
Lawl
China spying is a problem for your government, your government spying is your problem.
“I gUeSs IlL use ThReAdS. WhAts ThE hArM” /s
What data do instances expose to Meta if they federate that Meta (or literally anyone) can’t obtain right now if they wanted?
Remember folks, when subverting a theocratic hellscape, use something encrypted.
This isn’t subversion, or any sort of theocratic hellscape.
Girl could have gotten an abortion 100% legally up through 20 weeks of preganancy. At 24 weeks the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. At 28 weeks she (with the assistance of her mother) took meds to kill the fetus and induce a stillbirth, commenting that she couldn’t wait to be able to wear jeans again.
She goes through natural labor to pass the stillbirth outside of any medical facility or supervision, burns the remains, and buries them on a farm. When questioned by police, she and her mother admit to using Facebook Messenger to discuss their plans.
The only thing in any way related to the romanticized fiction of some sort of downtrodden freedom seeker you’re talking about is that using encrypted communications would have prevented their discussions from being available to be subpeona’d. That said, admitting to police you even had those discussions in the first place kind of defeats the damn purpose.
Allowing her to just get an abortion would have avoided this entire situation in the first place.
I think I’m missing something here. She was allowed to just get an abortion, for 20 weeks. This was all before the godawful Roe v Wade repeal.
It was also in a state that didn’t change their abortion stance after Roe v Wade was repealed. Nothing was stopping her getting an abortion for the first 20 weeks like you said.
Eh 28 weeks seems kind of late for an abortion though.
That’s none of your business, though. It’s not your body. Besides, Nebraska is basically a third world country when it comes to maternal health care availability, which makes this applicable:
In low-income countries, half of newborns born at or below 32 weeks gestational age die due to a lack of medical access
Comparing any first world state to third world countries is a hell of a jump.
Generalizing statistics about third world countries to argue they apply to a first world state, no matter how shitty, poor, or ass backwards the state is… that’s an even bigger leap.
That statement is applicable to the context it was observed in, low income countries, not backwards ass first world states. Please don’t pretend otherwise. Surely you can make your point with statistics actually relevant to the context of Nebraska.
The USA has infant mortality rates that would make most the neutral world (ie “third-world countries”) consider sending aid.
When it comes to de facto healthcare availability, especially reproductive healthcare, most red states would compare unfavourably to the majority of African countries.
That’s what happens when you have a system based on profits over access for everyone, add an insurance industry whose main focus is to make sure that as little medical treatment as possible occurs and THEN add corrupt politicians whose owner donors think that even THAT is too generous towards the poors and also an invisible section of the bible says that forcing women to give birth to unwanted children while decreasing the number of places to do so safely is holiness itself.
You are right, but you’re swimming against the tide here. 28 weeks is a fully formed child that moves and would survive of born at this point. I am all for reproductive rights but going up to 28 weeks is just irresponsible.
We don’t even know if she had an abortion. May she had a miscarriage and was just trying to avoid what’s happening now, being accused of having had an abortion.
Now that sounds a lot like theocratic hellscape…
She took abortion drugs…
I’ve taken the liberty of re-reading the article and have some things to point out 1. the girl was 17, a literal child, something you seemed to forget in your comment 2. You mentioned that she wanted to wear jeans again and that that was the motive, but the word ‘jeans’ wasn’t even mentioned, which makes me wonder if you’re tampering with anything in your comment coming from the article. All that considered you have a good point with some things such as in this specific situation such as them confessing to conspiracy was not a good idea, but I will still say use something end to end encrypted when doing something like this.
It might not be in this article but there are others that state that one of her messages about doing the abortion was that she couldn’t wait to wear jeans again.
She should have legally gotten an abortion in the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy. I’m all for abortion and reproductive rights, but not when it’s a viable baby already like it is at 28 weeks. She had 5 months to abort legally and easily and she didn’t. Not only did she then illegally abort it, but she burned the stillborn baby and buried it. That’s not ok.
commenting that she couldn’t wait to be able to wear jeans again.
Where was that in the article? I missed it.
This is really interesting (and awful) context.
This isn’t a simple “my body my choice” type situation.
If you have nothing to hide… but then they just change the laws, now you are a criminal and they already have handy tools in place to convict you.
“private chat history” on Facebook…
When you oppose the left-wing, you’re defending this.
btw, I oppose both
It’s kind of stupid to think that one side would use it and the other wouldn’t. Just because they aren’t destroying your privacy for this purpose doesn’t mean left leaning politicians wouldn’t use your data for their own clandestine reasons.
The right destroys privacy for either their control of the poors or for religious morality police.
The left destroys privacy to root out fascism.
They are not the same[.gif].
Gonna Re-Share this resource… PLEASE forward to individuals who may need it! https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/digital-security-and-privacy-tips-those-involved-abortion-access
Gonna Re-Share this resource… PLEASE forward to individuals who may need it! https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/digital-security-and-privacy-tips-those-involved-abortion-access
thank you!
