124
Why do you care about privacy?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
124 points (95.6% liked)
Privacy
32492 readers
858 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Law enforcement used Facebook private messages to investigate and prosecute a woman for an "illegal abortion". This is not a hypothetical, this happened.
I care about my privacy because I don't want right-wing weirdos and perverts incarcerating me for controlling my own body.
There are more reasons. This is just the one most recently in the news as a glaring red flag real-life example.
Uhhh... if that's the situation that blew up on lemmy shortly after the reddit API-pocalypse, that specific one probably isn't something you want to rally behind.
That situation occurred in Nebraska, before the messy Roe v Wade repeal. At the time, abortions were 100% legal and available until the end of the 20th week (5th month) of pregnancy, far past the point that anyone shouldn't be aware they are pregnant.
Beyond that, fetuses are considered viable outside the womb at 24 weeks (6 months). They show clear signs of conciousness before this point.
This woman waited until week 28. Two months past the point it could have been done legally and safely by a doctor. One month past the point of being viable to survive outside the womb. No US state has ever allowed abortions that late into the pregnancy.
The way she performed the abortion was to take medicine to kill the fetus. She still had to go through the normal process of labor and delivery (of the stillborn) afterwards, without any medical assistance. She and her mother then burned the stillbirth and buried it on a farm.
At that moment, if she had had labor induced, she could have went through the same process in a safer manner, and given the resultant baby up for adoption. She had roughly two months left until she would have given birth naturally. Going through labor in the manner that she did does not sidestep any of the postpartum medical and health stuff that happens after a normal pregnancy either.
This also ignores all of the many contraceptives available to help prevent pregnancy in the first place as well.
The only change was causing extra danger to herself, two months of time, and whether or not a living baby existed at the end.
She and her mother discussed their plans at length on Facebook messenger, before Facebook implemented end to end encryption. One of the last comments is of the woman stating she couldn't wait to wear jeans again.
When questioned by police, they admitted to their actions, and admitted to discussing it on Facebook messenger. That is the reason the cops even got the subpeona for the chat logs. They told the cops where to look for evidence of their crime, and the cops followed normal investigative protocol.
Don't talk to cops.
Privacy is important, but that was not the narrative of some downtrodden freedom seeker's rights being infringed upon by regressive right wing policy, the surveillance state, or anything else that a lot of people took it to be.
Those details are unnecessary for this conversation. Cops used Facebook private messages to build a case to prosecute an illegal abortion.
They have established the process and the precedent, next time it will be a woman only 5 months pregnant. Or who has an ectopic pregnancy and is past six weeks. Or was raped. Or isn't in a financial situation suitable for raising a child. Or simply doesn't want a child. It doesn't matter the details, cops have and will use private messages to prosecute women getting abortions.
The arguments that "because of her one comment about wanting to wear jeans again means she was just a careless, shallow woman who didn't want to take responsibility for her actions and got what she deserved" is a load of crap. Not saying you are doing that solely, but that is not a good argument for not caring about privacy.
You're welcome to your opinion, but I feel the bolded section is distinctly relevant.
If you want privacy, don't admit to a crime and tell the cops where to find the evidence. Privacy starts at home with proper OPSEC.
That's the story. It has very little to do with the specific crime committed.
The cops did as the cops do: if they are given a lead, particularly by the perp themselves, they investigate. To not do so would be to not do their job.
There was no new precedent here. This was not some brand new enforcement of a new law, and the chats were not the definitive evidence in the trial. Cops using Facebook chat transcripts were likewise not something newly established in this case.
The rest is me emphasizing that this lady was not a martyr, with the jeans comment being the least damning part of it all. Meant as a lead up to the bold.
She overwhelmingly had the ability to do what she needed to do, safely and legally. That has to mean something. And if it doesn't mean shit to you, I know for a fact it means something to the people who want to take your reproductive rights away, or to ignore the very real dangers you're worried about.
That said this is not the first step down that slope that you're acting like it is, and it is not some datapoint on a downward trend towards what you are afraid of. This is a intersection of already existing problems that someone thought they could spin for clicks and emotion bait, and it overwhelmingly worked.
Stay safe, take steps to prevent ending up in that situation, only discuss dangerous shit using safe protocols, and for fuck's sake don't tell the cops where the evidence is.
Thanks for giving the details so i didnt have to. Totally misrepresnted situation. Politicized and details omitted for shock value. Super annoying to hear about this story in the context of privacu or abortion rights
Don't want to be a devil's advocate here but nowadays it's left-wing weirdos that use publicly available data to cancel people they don't agree with. Let's keep personal political views out of this discussion.
As for the first paragraph, I vaguely remember reading about this. And this is a great example.
You asked, I answered. Thinking about what right wing weirdos and perverts might do when in power is absolutely part of why I care about my digital privacy.
You're the one who brought in a personal political view, and basic history realize your claim, which is why you didn't actually cite any.
I mean, what's a good example of cancer culture? If some white guy says something horribly racist, and then he loses an election, he complains about cancel culture. But that's a good thing, because we don't want racist bastards in office. Of course he doesn't see it that way. So he looks for some new term to describe the phenomenon, some way to make himself a victim.
The term itself was created by right wing people who decided to deploy it against those they didn't favor, as an excuse to justify their own bigotry, but the idea of public shaming and goes back centuries if not millennia. Quite naturally, the establishment has a strong interest in public shaming if it will keep them around longer.
Example: Terry Crews speaking out about his own experiences with sexual assault. Also him calling for black men to step up and be father figures in communities lacking them.
You can argue that he wasn't truly "cancelled", but he drew a lot or fire for those. People claiming that he was somehow taking away from womens' experiences by speaking about his own, and people saying that his statements about a lack of father figures in the African American community was racist.
It's not just white people wanting excuses to be racist. Just mostly that.
So he wasn't cancelled. Some people were critical of how he said some things. That's the way people work.
I could post "the best spaghetti sauce recipe" and I would get people telling me I'm an idiot and wrong about Italian culture and blah blah blah. That's not cancellation. Any opinion, no matter how benign, gets crap on the internet.
Yes, as I already addressed. But it's important to understand the way the other side frames this shit, and they absolutely framed it as attempts to cancel him.
They asked for an example of "cancel culture" and I gave one of the few these people cite that isn't absolutely batshit or racist.
So most people being allegedly cancelled are batshit or racist? ... Why is cancelling bad then?
There's few cases of non batshit, non racist ppl being cancelled. The best example you could think of, you acknowledge wasn't actually cancelling.
I'm not getting it.