Facebook messages, obtained via valid warrant, help make case against women
Important to note that police only sought the warrant after the women mentioned to them that they had talked on Facebook messenger about it.
Never talk to the police.
Also never trust a message is private unless you’ve at minimum encrypted it. Facebook, Twitter, reddit, even here.
Nothing here is private. At the very least, your messages are stored unencrypted on both the sending and receiving servers, and are completely readable to instance admins.
Yup. If it isn’t E2EE, don’t trust it.
If you’re on Apple, use iMessage or a reputable dedicated encrypted messaging app (not WhatsApp). If you’re on Android, likewise use a dedicated encrypted messaging app or make sure that you and your recipient are both using the same Google Jibe RCS implementation and have it on.
I don’t fully trust Apple’s claims because I feel they might have backdoors. I would trust only FOSS apps like Signal, Session, or Matrix.
Understandable to not trust a big corp. Apple does have a solid track record on encryption though and actively fighting against backdoors.
FOSS is generally the best choice though.
I’ll trust them more if they are more transparent like Signal
They do have a transparency report they publish twice a year. The first one for 2022 should be out soon.
https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/us.html
They also publish one for almost if not all countries they operate in.
It’s not as detailed as Signals but does detail all government requests they get.
As far as the encryption goes, keys are generated by the devices themselves and not Apple servers.
They also detail where the keys are stored for iCloud based on what protection you choose. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
And they’re fairly transparent on all the privacy features.
I wouldn’t trust them entirely if you’re a very high risk for breach like a journalist in hostile countries, but I also wouldn’t trust any off the shelf solution for that and would be running a heavily locked down privacy focused Android fork in that case.
The cross OS compatibility is an issue though and I use Signal for anyone on Android that I talk to.
Also if you don’t trust either of the ends, it doesn’t matter much if it is E2E.
Never trust a message is private unless you’ve at minimum end to end encrypted it and make sure both devices are not compromised.
Emphasis on “you’ve encrypted.” If you don’t have the keys its not safe. Imessage has great encryption but Apple will just hand over the keys if asked so its useless.
Apple doesn’t have the keys to it. That’s one of the major points of iMessage. Your keys are generated on device only. Apple can’t give what they don’t have. With the newer keychain stuff they’ve also made iCloud end to end encrypted as well, using keys generated on device, if you use advanced data security.
And if they would, they wouldn’t have gone to court over it when it was literal terrorists, the San Bernardino shooters a decade ago. They couldn’t turn over the keys to their iMessages because they didn’t have them and they went to court after they refused to put a back door in for the US government.
There’s a LOT to hate about Apple, but privacy so far hasn’t really been one of them. They’re pretty transparent about privacy features and how data is handled.
Rule #1 When talking to the police, shut the fuck up. Rule #2 Ask for your lawyer. Rule #3 Shut the fuck up.
Use public key encryption programs like Open PGP or GNU Privacy Guard.
BUT you will want a program that is under active community development which releases regular updates to address any weaknesses or flaws as soon as they are developed , and ideally you want to be able to hand a copy to all trusted people you would like to securely communicate with.
Normal people or even nerds can’t use pgp to chat regularly. Better option is signal or matrix
Also worth noting the daughter was 4 months pregnant.
That seems pretty far along to be helping someone have an abortion without a doctor.
That’s what happens in red states that ban abortion. It becomes illegal to go to a doctor for it.
Banning abortion only makes women seek back alley abortions that are risks to their own lives.
Absolutely valid take, but that’s not at all what happened here.
Some very important context in this case:
This was before Row v Wade was overturned, in a state where (red or not) abortion was not banned. At the time she could have had an abortion performed entirely legally up through 20 weeks of pregnancy.
There were hurdles such as required counseling explicitly and openly against abortion, having to wait 24 hours after declaring intent to abort to be able to perform it, and a likelyhood that insurance would not have covered it. That’s some bullshit, but still not a ban.
There’s no evidence that she made any attempt to do this the legal way, or was in any extenuating circumstances that would have made doing this the legal way impossible or more difficult.
Fetuses are viable outside the womb 24 weeks in. If she had taken meds to induce labor instead of to kill it, she could have put it up for adoption. Either way she still went through labor to pass the stillbirth.
She also openly stated that her reasoning for doing this was to be able to wear jeans again.
Also worth noting that there are incredibly few places in the world that allow abortions this late into pregnancy, so it’s not just simply some republican/red/right or American thing going on. There’s bigger reasonings behind the cutoff time. Not making any judgements on the validity, just that this is not some “murrica bad!” or “right wing, more like wrong wing” situation.
Look, abortion law is an absolute shit show, and a major problem in the US. Privacy is a big deal issue too. But this instance is not the great example of wrong that people and the headlines are making it out to be, and should not be used as such or as some sort of rallying point for pushes to improve the situation.
Don’t incorporate shoddy shit like this case into the foundation for your arguments. Just makes it easy to get torn down. This is an anti-abortionist’s dream case for people to point to, because it’s so easy to make actually valid counter points to. I’m certain there’s better cases to use as examples out there.
While that certainly is a valid point, saying she please guilty for having an abortion is a very misleading headline.
“Pleads guilty to abortion” is a phrase I never hoped to read in my lifetime.
It’s also sensationalist bs. The actual charges were for performing an abortion without being a doctor and for concealing the death.
It was her daughter that she gave abortion pills to, and then helped dispose of the fetus. The daughter was 29 weeks pregnant and the law (since 2010 btw) is abortions can only be performed up to 20 weeks. The daughter also only got the charge for hiding the body.
But yeah 29 weeks is well past viability. At that point it’s more like inducing still birth. Nobody pleaded guilty to abortion. We need to fight for our rights, but we also need to do it while educated.
All of these rage bait titles are getting ridiculous.
“Counselors” be like: I’m sworn to professional secrecy, but I’ll rat you the fuck out if I think you’re doing something slightly illegal. Now tell me your secrets!
How many times is this old story going to be reposted here?
Removed by mod
I mean, what they did would be illegal regardless of Dobbs and in the entire EU. This isn’t the case to prove that point, which is why it very quickly faded after the initial run of misleading headlines when it happened. I’m absolutely pro choice but the woman and her daughter are not poster children for victims of the pro life movement. They committed actual crimes and she put her daughter in actual danger. They then openly admitted to police that they discussed it on an unencrypted and available messaging system which resulted in a valid warrant issued by a judge with due process.
This just plain isn’t a smoking gun against anti abortionists or Meta. The more you pretend it is the more it ruins your credibility to anyone that actually reads the details of the case.
Maybe if there were less hurdles to get an abortion in Nebraska the mother wouldn’t have done what she did? Not excusing her behavior but to dismiss this the way you did seems unfair.
Here were the restrictions in place in Nebraska when this happened.
In Nebraska, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of June 28, 2022:
A patient must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage the patient from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
Private insurance policies cover abortion only in cases of life endangerment, unless individuals purchase an optional rider at an additional cost. Health plans offered in the state’s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion in cases of life endangerment.
Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment, unless individuals purchase an optional rider at an additional cost.
The use of telemedicine to administer medication abortion is prohibited.
The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
An abortion may be performed at 20 or more weeks postfertilization (22 weeks after the last menstrual period) only in cases of life endangerment or severely compromised health.
This law is based on the assertion, which is not consistent with scientific evidence and has been rejected by the medical community, that a fetus can feel pain at that point in pregnancy.
The state requires abortion clinics to meet unnecessary and burdensome standards related to their physical plant, equipment and staffing.
The use of a safe, effective and commonly used method of second trimester abortion is prohibited.
Abortions using dilation and evacuation are permitted only in cases of life endangerment or severely compromised physical health.
While those restrictions are absolute BS and I fully support safe and legal access to abortions, this simply is not the case to make the poster child. It was before Dobbs was decided and well outside the window in even the majority of Blue states and the EU. When it comes to super late term abortions they are the obvious boogeyman that the anti abortion crowd uses to justify their draconian restrictions. This is one of the most clear cut examples of the scenarios that generally don’t happen. During the debates Buttigieg put it perfectly on his response to late term abortions. https://www.vox.com/2019/5/19/18631854/pete-buttigieg-fox-news-town-hall
This is literally the one in 10 million example that breaks the mold. She wasn’t actively trying and stopped by road blocks, she didn’t just miss the cutoff due to logistics. This is literally the only tangible example of the actual boogeyman argument that I’ve come across. It was pre-Dobbs, they broke many laws beyond just the timing of the abortion and Meta was responding to a valid subpoena after the mother and daughter forgot about “shut the fuck up friday.” Reposting this a year later 4 times a day on 3 different Lemmy communities for a week to prove your ultra lib credentials isn’t beneficial to the cause, women’s rights or the growth of Lemmy.
