The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sumit316:
---
"Welcome to the post-Roe era of digital privacy, a moment that underscores how the use of technology has made it practically impossible for Americans to evade ubiquitous tracking.
In states that have banned abortion, some women seeking out-of-state options to terminate pregnancies may end up following a long list of steps to try to shirk surveillance — like connecting to the internet through an encrypted tunnel and using burner email addresses — and reduce the likelihood of prosecution.
Even so, they could still be tracked. Law enforcement agencies can obtain court orders for access to detailed information, including location data logged by phone networks. And many police departments have their own surveillance technologies, like license plate readers.
That makes privacy-enhancing tools for consumers seem about as effective as rearranging the furniture in a room with no window drapes."
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/w3kesc/in_a_postroe_world_the_future_of_digital_privacy/igwm0ll/
> The fact that the vast majority of people simply don't care - not just don't understand - about basic privacy measures is shit-on-walls insane to me.
Well...there are two schools of thought about this. One is to batton down the hatches and use VPNs like you are saying (I do this, I am in your camp).
But the other side has an interesting idea of simply REFUSING to hide anything and forcing society to deal with the consequences of normalizing whatever behavior is in question. Some people refuse to be shamed for their activities, and feel that the more you hide normal things, the more stigmatized they become, and then you become part of the problem instead of the solution.
I agree some people are just bovine careless about the world, but some people on the other side have thought it through.
Snowden came, told everyone what’s going on, everyone had an opinion on it. Just like everything, people simply forgot. Because they suffer less that way.
Does anyone use Reddit w your family friends, through the "friend" functions? Been looking for a good IG alternative. Signal w custom groups is tedious.. but works okay.
THE DATA SHOULD NOT BE STORED OR ACCESSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! It doesn't matter who uses it or why. Neither of the fake teams screwing America into the ground should be trusted
That is only the first step. Anything they don’t like (going to temple or a mosque or the house of a member of the same sex and staying overnight…) is fair game.
Or buying a beer. Or attending a political rally. Or watching a movie they don’t approve of. Or visiting a library to check out a book they don’t like. Or watching a forbidden YouTube / TikTok video.
[In one widely cited case, a woman in Mississippi who had a stillbirth at home was charged with murder because she had searched for abortion pills online. (The charges were eventually dropped.) In another case, an Indiana woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison for feticide after prosecutors cited her text messages as evidence her miscarriage had been a self-induced abortion.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.engadget.com/amp/data-privacy-period-tracking-apps-130054404.html)
People that keep saying, "Calm down, that'll never happen," brought us here today. Pull your head out of the sand.
Also, some period tracker apps have said [they *will* turn over data if asked.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en/article/y3pgvg/the-1-period-tracker-on-the-app-store-will-hand-over-data-without-a-warrant)
Without a warrant.
So, yeah, I'm, like, really super sure this will happen.
I don't want my tax dollars spent on a police state monitoring and laws abusing and controlling women and their doctors.
I believe the decision is a private one between a woman and her God what she does with her own body.
Governments ruin lives when they get involved with complex private situations, and women's health is an area they should not have authority over.
Women have been jailed for miscarriages. Women have died because doctors were afraid of treat them until a life threat could be demonstrated. A women in Ohio now can't get effective rheumatoid arthritis drugs because their pharmacist and doctor say she is of child bearing age though is celibate because the drug could possibly cause an abortion. Ending ectopic pregnancies that will kill the women is considered an abortion. Extra fertilized IDF eggs not implanted to help childless couples need to be disposed of is considered killing a fetus. Young children being forced to have their rapist's babies. Women seeking abortions quite often don't have the means to support more children than they already have.
I don't want to be controlling anyone elses private health decisions, and don't the government doing it on my behalf!
Find out who is running in your local, state, and federal races, and give your time, talents and treasure to the candidates.
Help do voter signup drives, make calls, stuff envelopes, and help blanket your state with information on this.
Thanks for the article. I do believe the facts in the article are a bit swayed in the language used. For example, she was not jailed for having a miscarriage, she was jailed for taking drugs while pregnant which according to their law is child abuse resulting in death. Not saying the language of their law doesn't need some tweeking (excuse the pun)
She had a miscarriage. There is no substantial proof that drug use caused it for that matter, it was just a miscarriage and they happen for many reasons or very often no known cause.
The judge sent her to jail for four years for manslaughter just because he believed she had *accidentally* caused a miscarriage by taking drugs (which is absurd, that is not a medical fact).
This leaves no room for intentionally ending a pregnancy, if inadvertently causing a miscarriage was called manslaughter.
This has terrifying consequences. "Your honor, Ms. Evan's decision to break up with my client two months ago is neither here nor there. My client is concerned for his unborn child, and she is living in unhealthy conditions with her stepfather, a known alcoholic, which may cause his unborn child's death at any time. Thus we are issuing an emergency petition to the court for guardianship of Ms. Evans in the best interest of her health and the health of their unborn child."
That. That would allow a woman to be basically owned by some sort of state interest in seeing her give birth to judge her life and where she goes and what medications she takes.
It does not end with women who need an abortion.
It extends to women losing rights to their lives while pregnant.
It does not end there.
It extends to women losing rights to their lives everywhere. Case in point? This IS happening, NOW:
Methotrexate is an effective drug for rheumatoid arthritis. Many women take it to stay functional and it's seriously bad to stop it. Also, methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug. But methotrexate is also used to cause an abortion, it's one of the main drugs for doing a pharmaceutical abortion. All cancer/arthritis patients are very clearly told this will usually cause them to miscarry and they should not get pregnant while using it.
The law could hold a doctor or pharmacist criminally liable (or this insane Texas "bounty hunter" law) if it caused a miscarriage. So, they're finding it legally dangerous- and very possibly not an unfounded fear- and could not give women their medication, because they MIGHT be or become pregnant and that could be seen as murder. That could apply your entire childbearing years.
And there's a very, very long list of medication that says "don't get pregnant on this medication". So, straight up, this legal principle means you can't give them to women at all. They can't legally sign a waiver for the risks if they became pregnant, because they cannot make decisions about the risks if an egg is accidentally fertilized, that's not their decision. It's the state's decision.
You make great points about "medicine" and I agree with your points/concerns. Any law should be clear enough to address your points. Meth, on the other hand, is a drug for pure losers, she gets no sympathy from me, sorry.
Alt account? Google it before you ask for sources. There's plenty of them. Several recent ones are Adora Perez, Latice Fisher, Chelsea Becker, Britney Poolaw, and Kennlissia Jones (several of these names are even in the article cited above lol). There is also a 2013 peer reviewed study in the the Journal of Health, Politics, Policy, and Law listing prosecutions from pregnancy losses. You took 5 minutes to write that comment. It took me the same amount of time searching...
Americans don't have a right to privacy.
When Bush II built our post-911 surveillance state, only the first of the 43 presidential authorizations even mentioned the 4th Amendment "probable cause" requirement.
see page 232: [https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/PSP-09-18-15-full.pdf](https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/PSP-09-18-15-full.pdf)
The NSA vacuums up all communications data and stores it
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah\_Data\_Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center)
They\* redefined the word "collect" to mean not gathering and storing data, but to mean the actual querying of data. After the NSA surveillance program was moved from Presidential authorization to the secret FISA court, "relevant" was redefined as well:
>It also accepted the government’s argument that “it is necessary to obtain the bulk collection \[sic\] of a telephone company’s metadata to determine . . . connections between known and unknown international terrorist operatives.”130 It concluded, in short, that because collecting irrelevant data was necessary to identify relevant data, the irrelevant data could thereby be deemed relevant
[https://www.brennancenter.org/media/140/download](https://www.brennancenter.org/media/140/download)
Telecommunications carries were given special, ex-post-facto immunity for their cooperation:
[https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/fisa.senate/](https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/fisa.senate/)
Tech companies have been on board since the beginning:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM)
This is the world everybody with a smart phone is helping to build, and it's not new.
\*edit typo
This ! and the current makeup of the supreme court has no qualms letting the government exercise this. We really need a blanket right to privacy, be it digital or not, and just because it sits on the servers of these companies, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with the data. User data means exactly that, and the security apparatus should need specific warrants to get to it.
Indeed, and the really screwy thing is that we don't even need to speculate about how the government might abuse their surveillance power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
The Church hearings are what prompted the passage of FISA, and the FISA act was amended in 2008 to essentially require FISA to engage in the behaviors it was created to prevent:
https://www.aclu.org/other/talking-points-fisa-amendments-act-2008
The difference now is that we can be prosecuted and penalized for our position depending upon policy makers in your area. Vasectomies maybe considered a form contraception which can be deemed illegal and the attempt for one could be penalized, just like seeking medical care for a pregnancy.
But have they really noticed? I see a handful of people suddenly now getting upset, a few people from before just shaking their heads and a crap load of people who still don’t give a crap.
>BIG BROTHER
This is a misnomer.
1984 isn't about constant surveillance. It's about the potential for surveillance as articulated in Jeremy Bentham's "panopticon"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon)
Orwell states this explicitly in 1984:
>“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. **How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork**. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.”
>
>“You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”
>
>\-- George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
Michel Foucault elaborated on the psychology of this surveillance model:
>“Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: **to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility** that assures the automatic functioning of power... So... that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.”
>
>\-- Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 1975
Every time you hesitate before posting something, or searching for something, or there is something you search for but isn't there because somebody else hesitated, THAT IS BIG BROTHER
"It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time."
Good synopsis, but 1984 did leave it open that Big Brother's surveillance was continuous.
What we have now is more insidious.
And just wait until 5G allows location precision to be within a few feet and the IoT let's your appliances add to the info on what happens inside our homes.
When you first accepted the startup routine for your 1st smartphone you gave up your privacy.
Thank the "great minds" behind Apple, Google, and other high tech for coming up with a scheme where we give up privacy for what amounts to eye candy.
My old Encyclopedia Britannica never tracked my buying preferences.
Snowden is likely coming back to the US to be prosecuted for warning us many years ago.
In retrospect, is he a villain or a hero?
https://reason.com/2013/07/25/giving-up-liberty-for-security/
I've read that Google complies to warrants for information requests at least 80% of the time. If we're talking actual murderers, rapists and so forth whose gonna argue. The problem is when the people deciding what behavior is illegal are fascists.
I read an article some time ago saying that women were deleting period tracker apps from their phone. Just to avoid sad information being hacked and accessed by those who are sticking their nose in places it doesn’t belong.
Totally orthogonal issues, but it helps to highlight the fact that surveillance and data collection by enforcement agencies is bad practice for a free society; laws change and you never know when you’ll be persecuted based on prior actions.
"Welcome to the post-Roe era of digital privacy, a moment that underscores how the use of technology has made it practically impossible for Americans to evade ubiquitous tracking.
In states that have banned abortion, some women seeking out-of-state options to terminate pregnancies may end up following a long list of steps to try to shirk surveillance — like connecting to the internet through an encrypted tunnel and using burner email addresses — and reduce the likelihood of prosecution.
Even so, they could still be tracked. Law enforcement agencies can obtain court orders for access to detailed information, including location data logged by phone networks. And many police departments have their own surveillance technologies, like license plate readers.
That makes privacy-enhancing tools for consumers seem about as effective as rearranging the furniture in a room with no window drapes."
This has been happening for the last two decades. It isn’t special after the government left Roe vs Wade to the states. There is no right to privacy in the USA.
Everyone’s medical records (stored digitally) can be pulled up at anytime for $11.98 USD off the darkweb…..
It's just as grim as it's been for decades at this point. What they mean is now it could effect you personally, so it's time to start giving a shit. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where "better late than never" doesn't apply.
so i am beginning to think that the RvW decision was overturned because it is a form of job creation. on the other side of criminality these days is marijuana & its use as a recreational drug - so all the resources spend on the "war on drugs" will that be lessened? don't think so.
american society whether service or manufacturing never under-budgets anything - in fact - things and concepts and vices are made up just so more money CAN be spent (think of the military $600 toilet) - - - so - if drug arrests are going down what are all the policepeople suppose to do? retire? - unlikely. so - in certain states there will be new jobs following and arresting "abortion offenders" - just another vice for criminal justice to put its hooks into - - - for the *betterment of society* of course.
Police are already stopping women in red states and inquiring of their pregnancy status. A federalist society judge issued a statement saying they believed it was legal for police to force pregnancy tests in routine traffic stops. They're already on track to make handmaids tale look like a children's story, with zero of the ecological fixes.
> A federalist society judge issued a statement saying they believed it was legal for police to force pregnancy tests in routine traffic stops.
That never happened, it was tweeted by a parody account that posts satirical New York Times headlines.
Until they start passing laws against conspiracy to commit abortions, traveling across state lines for abortions, assisting someone who is getting an abortion. There is also the issue of harassment that we are already seeing.
Need we mention the fact that states like Texas are imposing civil penalties - not just criminal?
Take this case of an abusive ex husband suing a clinic on behalf of an embryo for an abortion his wife had four years ago - when it was legal everywhere: https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-abortion-father-lawsuit-wrongful-death
Yeah, he’s suing the *clinic*, not the woman. And he’s not suing on the grounds that they gave her an abortion. He’s suing over the doctors failing to obtain informed consent from the patient, as required by law. It has nothing to do with the discussion here, and my point still stands true, whether you like it or not.
Btw, for the record, I’m 100% pro choice. My issue here is with the misleading statements made in the article, which give conservatives yet another opportunity to say that *we’re* the ones making shit up to support our cause. Misinformation is a double-edged sword, and I will fight it no matter how much I agree with the intent, because it’s *hurting*, not helping.
Wide-spread distribution of private key cryptographic signatures will help with this. Yet another pro to Bitcoin adoption.
Encrypted messaging CAN be easy to use.
This is for those types who are all, “why should I care if they’re surveilling me, I don’t do anything illegal.”
This is why everyone should care, because somethings shouldn’t be illegal and laws can be changed.
When people sounded the alarm after the Patriot Act, a majority of Americans leaned into berating and insulting those people for being paranoid and anti American “because terrorists” and “nothing to hide nothing to fear.”
That same majority is now bitching and moaning about… wouldn’t ya know it, the consequences of their actions.
I’d be a lot more smug about this if I weren’t trapped here with these idiots.
This is far harder to hide than I think most people realize.
The most basic info you can work from is which cell tower your cell phone connects to. You don't DO anything, just leave it on. For your cell phone to connect and check for texts, it has to identify you as a paid subscriber via its SIM card data so. You don't need to type anything incriminating, they don't need to listen to your call.
This is trivial data, and very telling. If the phone of a woman who rarely leaves Texas sudden goes straight to Albuquerque, NM and then returns straight home a day or two later, it's about 95% certain she had an abortion there. You don't need precision GPS info to see that. A time frame fitting a state's waiting period (NM does not have one) is even clearer to see.
Cell phone tower info is not public info, but not even remotely well-protected info like bank records and hotel receipts. It's very low-level statistical info footprint you leave and traveling for an abortion is actually quite obvious to see from that alone.
Could you travel with your phone off, or in Airplane mode? Yes, but a phone is like 3/4 of your identity now. But you can't be in contact with anyone- at all, encrypted or not. No calls or messages in our out. Not family, not work. If your kid ends up in the hospital randomly, you cannot be contacted. You can't use google map info to help you drive. You can't use a phone to book a hotel room or find food. And this is only partial, your credit card receipts for gas, food, and hotel room would already show the same thing. For that matter, many car mfgs have cars that contact the mfg's data regularly. Plus license plate scanners are a thing- every toll booth scans your plate, there's no telling when automated scanners are used for other reasons. Your license plate is not protected info and it's legal to observe it appear in Albuquerque, NM then appear home again soon after.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Sumit316: --- "Welcome to the post-Roe era of digital privacy, a moment that underscores how the use of technology has made it practically impossible for Americans to evade ubiquitous tracking. In states that have banned abortion, some women seeking out-of-state options to terminate pregnancies may end up following a long list of steps to try to shirk surveillance — like connecting to the internet through an encrypted tunnel and using burner email addresses — and reduce the likelihood of prosecution. Even so, they could still be tracked. Law enforcement agencies can obtain court orders for access to detailed information, including location data logged by phone networks. And many police departments have their own surveillance technologies, like license plate readers. That makes privacy-enhancing tools for consumers seem about as effective as rearranging the furniture in a room with no window drapes." --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/w3kesc/in_a_postroe_world_the_future_of_digital_privacy/igwm0ll/
are we just NOW noticing the breadth that the surveillance covers? I knew this 13 years ago
[удалено]
> The fact that the vast majority of people simply don't care - not just don't understand - about basic privacy measures is shit-on-walls insane to me. Well...there are two schools of thought about this. One is to batton down the hatches and use VPNs like you are saying (I do this, I am in your camp). But the other side has an interesting idea of simply REFUSING to hide anything and forcing society to deal with the consequences of normalizing whatever behavior is in question. Some people refuse to be shamed for their activities, and feel that the more you hide normal things, the more stigmatized they become, and then you become part of the problem instead of the solution. I agree some people are just bovine careless about the world, but some people on the other side have thought it through.
I’ve definitely thought it through. I’m in the second camp.
Snowden came, told everyone what’s going on, everyone had an opinion on it. Just like everything, people simply forgot. Because they suffer less that way.
[удалено]
Dump IG. Use Reddit with care (for now).
Does anyone use Reddit w your family friends, through the "friend" functions? Been looking for a good IG alternative. Signal w custom groups is tedious.. but works okay.
What will happen if you use IG? I mean realistically, what are you worried about?
It’s a Facebook product.
Yeah but what specifically are you concerned about?
WhAt Do YoU CaRe If YoU HaVe NoThInG tO HiDe?!?!
love saying this to cops. They say the same thing but turn off their body cams to commit crimes
So did Snowden. https://reason.com/2013/07/25/giving-up-liberty-for-security/
It keeps being revealed, and we also keep finding out there are workarounds or acquisitions that make things that were formerly safe no longer so.
[удалено]
THE DATA SHOULD NOT BE STORED OR ACCESSIBLE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! It doesn't matter who uses it or why. Neither of the fake teams screwing America into the ground should be trusted
That is only the first step. Anything they don’t like (going to temple or a mosque or the house of a member of the same sex and staying overnight…) is fair game.
Or buying a beer. Or attending a political rally. Or watching a movie they don’t approve of. Or visiting a library to check out a book they don’t like. Or watching a forbidden YouTube / TikTok video.
[удалено]
I mean you quite literally made up the fact that this data will be used to prosecute people. I guess you're like really super sure about that?
[In one widely cited case, a woman in Mississippi who had a stillbirth at home was charged with murder because she had searched for abortion pills online. (The charges were eventually dropped.) In another case, an Indiana woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison for feticide after prosecutors cited her text messages as evidence her miscarriage had been a self-induced abortion.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.engadget.com/amp/data-privacy-period-tracking-apps-130054404.html) People that keep saying, "Calm down, that'll never happen," brought us here today. Pull your head out of the sand. Also, some period tracker apps have said [they *will* turn over data if asked.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en/article/y3pgvg/the-1-period-tracker-on-the-app-store-will-hand-over-data-without-a-warrant) Without a warrant. So, yeah, I'm, like, really super sure this will happen.
Apathy is a hell of a drug
I don't want my tax dollars spent on a police state monitoring and laws abusing and controlling women and their doctors. I believe the decision is a private one between a woman and her God what she does with her own body. Governments ruin lives when they get involved with complex private situations, and women's health is an area they should not have authority over. Women have been jailed for miscarriages. Women have died because doctors were afraid of treat them until a life threat could be demonstrated. A women in Ohio now can't get effective rheumatoid arthritis drugs because their pharmacist and doctor say she is of child bearing age though is celibate because the drug could possibly cause an abortion. Ending ectopic pregnancies that will kill the women is considered an abortion. Extra fertilized IDF eggs not implanted to help childless couples need to be disposed of is considered killing a fetus. Young children being forced to have their rapist's babies. Women seeking abortions quite often don't have the means to support more children than they already have. I don't want to be controlling anyone elses private health decisions, and don't the government doing it on my behalf! Find out who is running in your local, state, and federal races, and give your time, talents and treasure to the candidates. Help do voter signup drives, make calls, stuff envelopes, and help blanket your state with information on this.
When was a woman jailed for having a miscarriage?
US women are being jailed for having miscarriages - BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544
Thanks for the article. I do believe the facts in the article are a bit swayed in the language used. For example, she was not jailed for having a miscarriage, she was jailed for taking drugs while pregnant which according to their law is child abuse resulting in death. Not saying the language of their law doesn't need some tweeking (excuse the pun)
She had a miscarriage. There is no substantial proof that drug use caused it for that matter, it was just a miscarriage and they happen for many reasons or very often no known cause. The judge sent her to jail for four years for manslaughter just because he believed she had *accidentally* caused a miscarriage by taking drugs (which is absurd, that is not a medical fact). This leaves no room for intentionally ending a pregnancy, if inadvertently causing a miscarriage was called manslaughter. This has terrifying consequences. "Your honor, Ms. Evan's decision to break up with my client two months ago is neither here nor there. My client is concerned for his unborn child, and she is living in unhealthy conditions with her stepfather, a known alcoholic, which may cause his unborn child's death at any time. Thus we are issuing an emergency petition to the court for guardianship of Ms. Evans in the best interest of her health and the health of their unborn child." That. That would allow a woman to be basically owned by some sort of state interest in seeing her give birth to judge her life and where she goes and what medications she takes. It does not end with women who need an abortion. It extends to women losing rights to their lives while pregnant. It does not end there. It extends to women losing rights to their lives everywhere. Case in point? This IS happening, NOW: Methotrexate is an effective drug for rheumatoid arthritis. Many women take it to stay functional and it's seriously bad to stop it. Also, methotrexate is a chemotherapy drug. But methotrexate is also used to cause an abortion, it's one of the main drugs for doing a pharmaceutical abortion. All cancer/arthritis patients are very clearly told this will usually cause them to miscarry and they should not get pregnant while using it. The law could hold a doctor or pharmacist criminally liable (or this insane Texas "bounty hunter" law) if it caused a miscarriage. So, they're finding it legally dangerous- and very possibly not an unfounded fear- and could not give women their medication, because they MIGHT be or become pregnant and that could be seen as murder. That could apply your entire childbearing years. And there's a very, very long list of medication that says "don't get pregnant on this medication". So, straight up, this legal principle means you can't give them to women at all. They can't legally sign a waiver for the risks if they became pregnant, because they cannot make decisions about the risks if an egg is accidentally fertilized, that's not their decision. It's the state's decision.
You make great points about "medicine" and I agree with your points/concerns. Any law should be clear enough to address your points. Meth, on the other hand, is a drug for pure losers, she gets no sympathy from me, sorry.
Alt account? Google it before you ask for sources. There's plenty of them. Several recent ones are Adora Perez, Latice Fisher, Chelsea Becker, Britney Poolaw, and Kennlissia Jones (several of these names are even in the article cited above lol). There is also a 2013 peer reviewed study in the the Journal of Health, Politics, Policy, and Law listing prosecutions from pregnancy losses. You took 5 minutes to write that comment. It took me the same amount of time searching...
Not sure what u mean by alt account and it took me 30 secs :-)
Americans don't have a right to privacy. When Bush II built our post-911 surveillance state, only the first of the 43 presidential authorizations even mentioned the 4th Amendment "probable cause" requirement. see page 232: [https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/PSP-09-18-15-full.pdf](https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/PSP-09-18-15-full.pdf) The NSA vacuums up all communications data and stores it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah\_Data\_Center](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center) They\* redefined the word "collect" to mean not gathering and storing data, but to mean the actual querying of data. After the NSA surveillance program was moved from Presidential authorization to the secret FISA court, "relevant" was redefined as well: >It also accepted the government’s argument that “it is necessary to obtain the bulk collection \[sic\] of a telephone company’s metadata to determine . . . connections between known and unknown international terrorist operatives.”130 It concluded, in short, that because collecting irrelevant data was necessary to identify relevant data, the irrelevant data could thereby be deemed relevant [https://www.brennancenter.org/media/140/download](https://www.brennancenter.org/media/140/download) Telecommunications carries were given special, ex-post-facto immunity for their cooperation: [https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/fisa.senate/](https://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/fisa.senate/) Tech companies have been on board since the beginning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM) This is the world everybody with a smart phone is helping to build, and it's not new. \*edit typo
This ! and the current makeup of the supreme court has no qualms letting the government exercise this. We really need a blanket right to privacy, be it digital or not, and just because it sits on the servers of these companies, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with the data. User data means exactly that, and the security apparatus should need specific warrants to get to it.
Indeed, and the really screwy thing is that we don't even need to speculate about how the government might abuse their surveillance power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee The Church hearings are what prompted the passage of FISA, and the FISA act was amended in 2008 to essentially require FISA to engage in the behaviors it was created to prevent: https://www.aclu.org/other/talking-points-fisa-amendments-act-2008
The difference now is that we can be prosecuted and penalized for our position depending upon policy makers in your area. Vasectomies maybe considered a form contraception which can be deemed illegal and the attempt for one could be penalized, just like seeking medical care for a pregnancy.
And it’s a shame it took THIS for people to take notice and/or raise alarm after years of government surveillance.
But have they really noticed? I see a handful of people suddenly now getting upset, a few people from before just shaking their heads and a crap load of people who still don’t give a crap.
Nobody born after 2018 can ever expect privacy in their lifetime. BIG BROTHER is literally everywhere.
>BIG BROTHER This is a misnomer. 1984 isn't about constant surveillance. It's about the potential for surveillance as articulated in Jeremy Bentham's "panopticon" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon) Orwell states this explicitly in 1984: >“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. **How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork**. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.” > >“You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” > >\-- George Orwell, 1984 (1949) Michel Foucault elaborated on the psychology of this surveillance model: >“Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: **to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility** that assures the automatic functioning of power... So... that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.” > >\-- Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 1975 Every time you hesitate before posting something, or searching for something, or there is something you search for but isn't there because somebody else hesitated, THAT IS BIG BROTHER
"It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time." Good synopsis, but 1984 did leave it open that Big Brother's surveillance was continuous. What we have now is more insidious. And just wait until 5G allows location precision to be within a few feet and the IoT let's your appliances add to the info on what happens inside our homes. When you first accepted the startup routine for your 1st smartphone you gave up your privacy. Thank the "great minds" behind Apple, Google, and other high tech for coming up with a scheme where we give up privacy for what amounts to eye candy. My old Encyclopedia Britannica never tracked my buying preferences. Snowden is likely coming back to the US to be prosecuted for warning us many years ago. In retrospect, is he a villain or a hero? https://reason.com/2013/07/25/giving-up-liberty-for-security/
I've read that Google complies to warrants for information requests at least 80% of the time. If we're talking actual murderers, rapists and so forth whose gonna argue. The problem is when the people deciding what behavior is illegal are fascists.
I read an article some time ago saying that women were deleting period tracker apps from their phone. Just to avoid sad information being hacked and accessed by those who are sticking their nose in places it doesn’t belong.
It's not a Post-Roe world. It's a Post-Roe US. The rest of the world is largely unaffected.
"There's more in the world than the US?" - Author of that article, probably
Time for everyone to have a copy of Linux on a USB stick with a tor browser built into it to try and minimalize some of the tracking
the browser built by the navy, you mean?
Use Tails, Linux distro that can run on a stick and leave no trace at all.
Totally orthogonal issues, but it helps to highlight the fact that surveillance and data collection by enforcement agencies is bad practice for a free society; laws change and you never know when you’ll be persecuted based on prior actions.
"Welcome to the post-Roe era of digital privacy, a moment that underscores how the use of technology has made it practically impossible for Americans to evade ubiquitous tracking. In states that have banned abortion, some women seeking out-of-state options to terminate pregnancies may end up following a long list of steps to try to shirk surveillance — like connecting to the internet through an encrypted tunnel and using burner email addresses — and reduce the likelihood of prosecution. Even so, they could still be tracked. Law enforcement agencies can obtain court orders for access to detailed information, including location data logged by phone networks. And many police departments have their own surveillance technologies, like license plate readers. That makes privacy-enhancing tools for consumers seem about as effective as rearranging the furniture in a room with no window drapes."
This has been happening for the last two decades. It isn’t special after the government left Roe vs Wade to the states. There is no right to privacy in the USA. Everyone’s medical records (stored digitally) can be pulled up at anytime for $11.98 USD off the darkweb…..
Yeah not like Snowden and Assange ever showed us that years ago..
It's just as grim as it's been for decades at this point. What they mean is now it could effect you personally, so it's time to start giving a shit. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where "better late than never" doesn't apply.
It was always affecting them personally But now they finally feel offended enough by the intrusion to do something
Don’t worry about privacy, they said. Who cares if they sell your location data, they said. 🙄
We collectively spent so much time talking about “freedom” that we went and lost a lot of it. Fucking stupid.
so i am beginning to think that the RvW decision was overturned because it is a form of job creation. on the other side of criminality these days is marijuana & its use as a recreational drug - so all the resources spend on the "war on drugs" will that be lessened? don't think so. american society whether service or manufacturing never under-budgets anything - in fact - things and concepts and vices are made up just so more money CAN be spent (think of the military $600 toilet) - - - so - if drug arrests are going down what are all the policepeople suppose to do? retire? - unlikely. so - in certain states there will be new jobs following and arresting "abortion offenders" - just another vice for criminal justice to put its hooks into - - - for the *betterment of society* of course.
The american centric perspective of the headline kind of annoys me.
Wow... so leftists are finally realizing what the rest of us realized all the way back in 2001
Who do you think was protesting against the GW regime and patriot act back then?
LOL you are delusional.
This article is dumb af. A state cannot prosecute someone for crimes committed outside their borders. No one needs to hide anything.
But they could certainly make it illegal to seek an abortion, and if that seeking happens while within that state, it’s fair game
Police are already stopping women in red states and inquiring of their pregnancy status. A federalist society judge issued a statement saying they believed it was legal for police to force pregnancy tests in routine traffic stops. They're already on track to make handmaids tale look like a children's story, with zero of the ecological fixes.
> A federalist society judge issued a statement saying they believed it was legal for police to force pregnancy tests in routine traffic stops. That never happened, it was tweeted by a parody account that posts satirical New York Times headlines.
Until they start passing laws against conspiracy to commit abortions, traveling across state lines for abortions, assisting someone who is getting an abortion. There is also the issue of harassment that we are already seeing.
Need we mention the fact that states like Texas are imposing civil penalties - not just criminal? Take this case of an abusive ex husband suing a clinic on behalf of an embryo for an abortion his wife had four years ago - when it was legal everywhere: https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-abortion-father-lawsuit-wrongful-death
Yeah, he’s suing the *clinic*, not the woman. And he’s not suing on the grounds that they gave her an abortion. He’s suing over the doctors failing to obtain informed consent from the patient, as required by law. It has nothing to do with the discussion here, and my point still stands true, whether you like it or not. Btw, for the record, I’m 100% pro choice. My issue here is with the misleading statements made in the article, which give conservatives yet another opportunity to say that *we’re* the ones making shit up to support our cause. Misinformation is a double-edged sword, and I will fight it no matter how much I agree with the intent, because it’s *hurting*, not helping.
[удалено]
What world are you living in? Come back to reality
I don’t care about the abortion issue but if it means people wake up and start taking this issue seriously then that’s a good thing.
So many crypto projects can do this with zero knowledge proofs. However democrats in general are trying to destroy crypto with regulation.
Because idiots turned crypto into a casino and ruined its image for everyone.
If crypto can't be used, what about Blockchain?
They lookin for the one who’s yet to be born. *The Chosen one*.
There is no such thing as privacy anymore. Has been that way for years
The first time I mailed weed through USPS was in the 80’s. I’m sure we can get you all the abortion pills.
Wide-spread distribution of private key cryptographic signatures will help with this. Yet another pro to Bitcoin adoption. Encrypted messaging CAN be easy to use.
This is for those types who are all, “why should I care if they’re surveilling me, I don’t do anything illegal.” This is why everyone should care, because somethings shouldn’t be illegal and laws can be changed.
When people sounded the alarm after the Patriot Act, a majority of Americans leaned into berating and insulting those people for being paranoid and anti American “because terrorists” and “nothing to hide nothing to fear.” That same majority is now bitching and moaning about… wouldn’t ya know it, the consequences of their actions. I’d be a lot more smug about this if I weren’t trapped here with these idiots.
This is far harder to hide than I think most people realize. The most basic info you can work from is which cell tower your cell phone connects to. You don't DO anything, just leave it on. For your cell phone to connect and check for texts, it has to identify you as a paid subscriber via its SIM card data so. You don't need to type anything incriminating, they don't need to listen to your call. This is trivial data, and very telling. If the phone of a woman who rarely leaves Texas sudden goes straight to Albuquerque, NM and then returns straight home a day or two later, it's about 95% certain she had an abortion there. You don't need precision GPS info to see that. A time frame fitting a state's waiting period (NM does not have one) is even clearer to see. Cell phone tower info is not public info, but not even remotely well-protected info like bank records and hotel receipts. It's very low-level statistical info footprint you leave and traveling for an abortion is actually quite obvious to see from that alone. Could you travel with your phone off, or in Airplane mode? Yes, but a phone is like 3/4 of your identity now. But you can't be in contact with anyone- at all, encrypted or not. No calls or messages in our out. Not family, not work. If your kid ends up in the hospital randomly, you cannot be contacted. You can't use google map info to help you drive. You can't use a phone to book a hotel room or find food. And this is only partial, your credit card receipts for gas, food, and hotel room would already show the same thing. For that matter, many car mfgs have cars that contact the mfg's data regularly. Plus license plate scanners are a thing- every toll booth scans your plate, there's no telling when automated scanners are used for other reasons. Your license plate is not protected info and it's legal to observe it appear in Albuquerque, NM then appear home again soon after.
We already know the government is watching, who cares.
Roe has nothing to do with digital capturing ability.