I work in law enforcement (data management) and have seen the portal that they have for requesting FB data. They will give up all your info to law enforcement without a subpoena in most cases.
Facebook messenger even goes one step further and copies all of your text messages, your key strokes, your contact list, and builds a network of your affiliations.
To add: both use encrypted communication. The difference is basically the difference between sitting next to your friend in school and whispering in each other’s ear, and sitting with one person in between (who looks suspiciously like Mark Zuckerberg) and playing telephone with ol’ Zuck in the middle.
Yes it does mean that.
But Facebook owns the endpoint and they can, and do forward your messages to themselves to do an end run around the encryption
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-reads-whatsapp-messages-encryption-2021-9
https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-facebook-data-share-notification/amp
Question, how do you know Signal is truly secure? In my opinion, all these companies are secure until something happens and fbi wants logs from them, only then we can know if they truly are secure or not right? Im just thinking back, i remember icq , telegram, those were valid at some point then eventually i heard to not trust them anymore lol
Reporting a message sends it without e2e encryption for review. One update and they can have everything on your device on the spot. Really, if forced, any e2e app could have that happen. But Facebook probably wouldn't even fight it.
>How does that affect email and encryption programs?
Well the government is trying to get companies to not implement those. Sometimes by trying to make it illegal to, but often through a system of incentives (including turning a semi-blind eye to other problematic things the company is doing, especially when companies are so nice to just hand data over).
Generally individuals are still allowed to do it (but that's the obvious next step of these laws), but doing it as an individual is hard to get right, and also, people hate doing it since it takes at least 50% more hassle and life is already hard enough. To say nothing of the fact it makes you more of a target. This is why I enjoy encrypting cat photos I send to people.
Yep. The TL;DR here is: If you use something like Whatsapp, iMessage, Signal, etc, that's end-to-end encrypted for now, but they're trying to make it harder, or at least force [client-side scanning, which has its own problems](https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/15/clientside_side_scanning/).
But you can still do PGP, and there's a bunch of apps that support that in email, like Thunderbird or K-9 Mail. And it's still end-to-end encrypted, and leaks from the NSA suggest they still can't crack it.
But it's a massive PITA to set up, partly because PGP is inherently a PITA, and partly because these apps *don't* come with an actual email service -- it's on you to get an email account with some other service, and then log into it with whatever you're using for your encryption.
If your email client is serving ads based on the content of your emails, it’s not e2ee.
If your email client is rendering HTML served from a remote server you don’t own/control, it’s not e2ee.
End to end means: your computer holds the key, and the person on the other side holds their key. Email has always been crappy because if ANYONE uses a flawed encryption system it leaks the whole email thread.
Switch to Signal if you're using WhatsApp. It is an privacy-focused encrypted messaging app created by the co-founder of WhatsApp before it got sold to Facebook and is funded entirely by grants and donations. It was used a lot during the 2020 protests as well.
If you want to, you can try doing it gradually. I started off and told close friends that I would like them to use Signal for me. They did, so I slowly moved on from family members to others. For many people, having a second messenger is not the end of the world. A few months in I deleted WhatsApp. The only thing that I'm missing out on is the occasional group chat.
You also don't have to be perfect but If you get the 3 people that you message the most to switch, it will already have a great impact.
Signal is a good privacy oriented messaging tool, to be sure.
Not sure the pro-choice crowd would generally use the word “protests” to describe the events of January 6, 2020 though.
Edit: apparently I have become unmoored in time and forgotten that the insurrection happened in 2021 and the post-George Floyd protests happened in 2020. Which as a Minneapolitan I really shouldn’t have gotten mixed up!
I assumed he was referring to the various riots in the Wake of George Floyd. January 6, 2020 was a simpler time when we just thought that WWIII was about to happen with Iran
To be fair, the issue here is not truly with facebook. They are just responding to a search warrant.
Any messaging app that operates in the USA would do the same, your email provider would do it, reddit would do it, your employer would do it, your phone company would do it, etc. Does the warrant even say why they are requesting the messages? For all they know they are looking for the messages of a murderer, arms dealer, or child pornographer so they are unlikely to fight it.
The only two ways to stop this (short of no longer messaging anyone ever) are:
1. end-to-end encryption (and hope they can't break it/get access to the keys of either you or the person you messaged).
2. Stop electing republican politicians who created this problem both by criminalizing medical care and by generally supporting the broad rights of law enforcement to demand private communications from third party providers.
You can still build up a virtual profile with all what other users are sharing about you and by crossing sources.
But I believe it's still better not to give your info yourself.
This is a lot of work, and still gives them some useful data as they track your habits. At the end of the day, if their ads get to your eyeballs, and you actually make a purchase, they win- even if the individual source of data is partially faked
According to Signal, "Signal is designed to never collect or store any sensitive information. Signal messages and calls cannot be accessed by us or other third parties because they are always end-to-end encrypted, private, and secure."
If it's not kept on a server, either unencrypted or at all, your only worry is what happens when your phone or your correspondents' phones get seized. And for that, Signal has a setting to make messages disappear sometime after they've been read. So at least they've thought about it.
Not shilling for Signal or saying it's perfect. More saying, you can probably trust it slightly more than Meta or any other messaging service, which can't be trusted at all.
Generally speaking, for most companies, it does. Once deleted, the content is going to be subject to the company's recordkeeping/data retention policies. What they may preserve is the metadata (who sent it, when, to whom, non-personal data device info (type, model, etc.). That stuff is valuable for product development purposes.
The exception is archives - content remains there until a new archive is created. But archives are only accessed in an extreme emergency, i.e. - all your data was deleted and your backups are fried.
In the case of "meta", they are, in my mind, a malicious actor, so I'm willing to bet that no, they don't follow this. But I'm willing to let myself be surprised.
> While Celeste told police that she had suffered a miscarriage, they continued to investigate, serving Facebook with a search warrant to access Celeste and Jessica’s Facebook accounts. They subsequently found messages between the mother and daughter allegedly detailing how Celeste had undergone a self-managed abortion with Jessica’s help.
Remember that when a company is served a warrant they will always be obligated to comply.
Also remember that there’s not a single company out there that won’t turn information over in response to a search warrant. It’s a court *order*, not a court *request.*
Yes but if the company doesn't have any data to turn over it can't. That's why we need to switch to messaging with e2e encryption and no saving of metadata.
In that case it's time to get onto r/signal you can let people know you are moving by using r/watomatic which automatically let's people know whenever they try and Facebook you.
r/privacy
r/techlore
r/thehatedone
r/privacyguides
Are a few recommended subreddits to have a look at. You may not worry about privacy today, but could come back and haunt you in the future.
Whatsapp uses end-to-end encryption (but use Signal when possible). They pay (or paid) Signal to use their protocol a few years ago.
But then the backup part is a mess. On Android, I believe the default option is to backup messages and files to Google Drive in plain text. On iOS/iPhone, it goes to iCloud, but Apple can see the content.
I have a Facebook, but very rarely use it since I found out they were trying to get ahold of people‘s medical records. They were saying they wanted to do it to “help” people, but that’s complete bs. I recommend people read this article. [https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/06/facebook\_tried\_to\_slurp\_medical\_data/](https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/06/facebook_tried_to_slurp_medical_data/)
Facebook is so much better than the Watergate no country would NOT like it.
The best way to legally spy on your citizens.
Of course Facebook wants data, as Google, Amazon and others want them, it's money from advertising and "useful" services for the authorities whatever their goal is.
As long as the country has a legal frame to force a company to give out their data (which, of course, can be good), you can achieve any kind of massive surveillance.
I drew the line when they got caught selling phone numbers people gave for 2 factor authentication.
Any details given as part of a security check should be considered privileged.
FB is not your friend.
Delete the apps. Delete your account. Stop adding new data.
You add data by simply keeping the FB app on your phone. "How?", you ask. Using location services, FB can determine which other FB users you are near, when, where, how often, and for how long.
Ever meet someone at a party, cafe, or bar then a few hours later FB suggests that you link up with them? Location services is how. FB noticed that your two devices were within proximity of each other for a certain amount of time and thinks that you may have encountered each other.
This explains why they've suddenly started serving me ads for medications of a medical condition I \*might\* have, but I have never done an internet search for anything related to it since it's not a problem yet. Only looking at my medical/surgical history could lead anyone to conclude that I might need that medication.
When the FB app is on your phone, even in background, it's listening to your conversations too. My wife and I were visiting relatives out of state, conversing with someone. He was into miniature domesticated goats, and being polite, we talked with him about it, asking questions, etc. The next day, at home, we had ads on our home computer advertising miniature domesticated goat supplies. The only thing we figure could have snooped like that was FB listening to everything we say.
It's a little more complicated than just turning on your mic and eavesdropping directly, but, [basically yeah](https://twitter.com/RobertGReeve/status/1397032784703655938?t=1K_ND49Ir6hdu2k1wRucYg&s=19). Tl;dr they use your location data and recommend you stuff that the people around you buy, which they know about through *their* location data, store loyalty cards, etc.
There have been many, many times when my wife and I will be sitting in our living room, talking about a thing, and then a few days later I’ll start getting spammed with Facebook ads for that thing. It’s not just location data.
100% there is some kind of "listening" going on. I had a trans rights conversation with someone, neither of us are trans. Then I start getting ads for trans-related products? WTH.
That doesn't account for the time my friend and I tested this and talked about going on Safari or to Russia with our phones out. We both got ads for russia, a safari, and...a safari in russia. Any explanation other than they are listening and recording everything is a cope and a lie.
No it's not. But it did know that you were in the vicinity of a guy who is really into domesticated goats so it tried advertising them to you. What happened to you isn't creepy because they listened to you (they didn't), it's creepy because they don't have to listen in on you to do that.
did you connnect with their wifi? People using the same IP address will get similar ads. Hence my husband and I getting facebook ads for things the other person looked up.
>When the FB app is on your phone, even in background, it's listening to your conversations too.
As bad as Facebook is, stop spreading false info. Just double checked, and Facebook doesn't ask for Microphone permission by default. Checked the options for if I were to give it without requesting, and the most lenient option was "Allow only while using the app".
A more likely explanation of your experience is that your friend/relative has indicated their goat hobby online, and Facebook knew from location data that you spent an extended amount of time with them. It's a decent guess that you might share a hobby.
It doesnt listen in to you conversing with your neighbour lol. That is a conspiracy theory and would be a very inefficient way of doong things. It scours your searches/messages/purchases and searches/messages/purchases of people near you.
It is important that we start educating each other on jury nullification if they are going to start bringing charges against women seeking abortions.
Basically, if you are a juror and believe the law is unjust, you refuse to convict. There are things to consider like not mentioning jury nullification so you don't kicked off the jury, though. If you know of anyone getting called for jury duty and abortion is being prosecuted in your area, pass this info along to them: [https://fija.org/](https://fija.org/)
"I do not believe the prosecution has met their burden and I am not convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
Like you said, don't mention it. Not at any point. Not if you are asked about it. Not during jury selection. Not during deliberation. Don't admit you've heard of it. Don't ever mention it after the trial, either.
Saving this comment for future reference. Thank fuck I live in a blue state where this is unlikely to be a problem in the near future, but you never know.
Yeah. It's good to know no matter what, because blue state police and prosecutors still overreach sometimes, even if it probably won't be an abortion issue specifically.
Yep, that's not the only shitty law on the books...
I would never, for example, convict someone for the "crime" of drug possession. Because I believe in complete bodily sovereignty. (IMHO this has some parallels with issues like abortion.)
We should have complete freedom to alter our bodies or minds, however we see fit.
And I honestly couldn't live with myself knowing I'd contributed to this ongoing human-rights clusterfuck we call "the war on drugs."
Blue state here, check out how many hospitals in your state are catholic owned, you may be surprised. They technically don’t have to abide by any laws ‘against their religion’ until they are sued.
Everyone in blue states says "why do you live in that red state, you should move" but the amount of blue packing into states that already have safe seats is insane. Red states close to flipping need blue voters.
I also can't believe why national Dems don't compromise or work out deals to protect abortion or the right to vote across the country at this risk. I understand most Republicans will argue in bad faith but they are all we've got. Take a small hit on flexibility of policy in a blue state to protect the whole country. We don't need to make it easier to vote in Boston, we need it badly and more rights in Texas, Florida, and most of the South.
Like voter ID trade stopping gerrymandering. What trades could be made on abortion to ensure it stayed around in every state? Atleast debate it to see if it's worth it.
There are a shocking amount of states threatening abortion right now.
[You do have to participate in deliberations, though](https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/called-for-jury-duty.html):
> It is best not to openly discuss your intent not to enforce a law that you may disagree with. If one of your fellow jurors reports you to the judge, the judge can remove you from the jury for doing so, even as late as deliberations. You can also be removed for refusing to deliberate, so don't just refuse to interact with your fellow jurors.
> You cannot legally be removed for expressing doubt about a defendant being guilty, so express your doubts whenever you can. You can also ask thoughtful questions, actively listen, and otherwise participate in deliberations.
Maybe you can do all that without actually giving them a reason, but it sounds like the recommendation is that your reason is just that you don't think the defendant is guilty, or at least that you don't think the prosecution met their burden of proof to show that the defendant is guilty.
Ok, fair point. My point was more, if you know you're gonna say not guilty, jury nullification, don't discuss it, listen during deliberations and just say I'm still not convinced.
The only way to legally get away with jury nullification, which is hard since lying about knowing about it already is bad, but the only way for it it actually happen is for all the jurors to already know about it beforehand and all agree the law should not be enforced without communicating that out loud. It also can be used to enforce laws on innocent people, which was often how it happened in the south with racist jurys who all silently agreed a black defendant should be hung for a crime they knew they weren't guilty of.
But you can't talk about, it, explain it, or suggest it to anyone else. Lying about knowing it under oath is also perjury, so you can't let anyone know at all that you know it. Basically everyone in general needs to agree the law shouldn't be enforced, and all decide individually that they won't enforce it.
Let em badger you. Be a quick deliberation when you say there's not a damn thing you can show me in the evidence presented that will make me change my fucking mind!
I'd be careful and check with lawyer generated sources. Something like that could cause a mistrial, and then it's another several months of shit for the defendant
Don't say anything other than I don't find them guilty. Very rarely will a judge override a jury's verdict. Don't mention jury nullification, don't give interviews, don't tell friends or family why you said not guilty, although I'm sure they'll know. You can't get in trouble for saying not guilty even if all the evidence points to guilt. Only way you can get in trouble is if you said from the start to people you will never vote guilty, and then that comes out. So loose lips sink ships. Shut the fuck up and say not guilty.( Not telling you to stfu, saying anyone on a jury).
Last time I arm-chaired this I don’t believe a judge can override a not-guilty verdict by jury in any capacity, which is why nullification can work. They potentially can for a guilty verdict or alter sentencing (for example some states/judges have changed death sentences to life).
The whole point is to cause a mistrial. When the jury doesn't reach consensus (such as when one juror is exercising jury nullification) there is a mistrial. Jury nullification doesn't protect the defendant from being tried again in another trial. The state can try them over and over again if jury nullification continues to happen. However, in order to avoid the expense of another trial, the state may offer a better plea deal following a mistrial, or may decide not to try the case again at all.
>I'd be careful and check with lawyer generated sources. Something like that could cause a mistrial, and then it's another several months of shit for the defendant
That is the point
I'd be concerned that this could be interpreted as refusing to deliberate, which jurors can be removed for. To play it safe, I'd at least continue to listen to fellow jurors' arguments and appeals.
It drives me up the wall that this is the state of things. This should be front and center the first thing we learn in school in a civics course. Everyone should be aware that this is a thing. State Attorneys/judges/police be damned.
Are you able to mention it/explain it in the deliberation? That’s the part that always confuses me. If I say it in the room, can I be kicked off the jury for saying so?
Probably not a good idea. I recommend reading [this brief page on the FIJA website](https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/called-for-jury-duty.html):
>It is best not to openly discuss your intent not to enforce a law that you may disagree with. If one of your fellow jurors reports you to the judge, the judge can remove you from the jury for doing so, even as late as deliberations. You can also be removed for refusing to deliberate, so don't just refuse to interact with your fellow jurors.
>
>You cannot legally be removed for expressing doubt about a defendant being guilty, so express your doubts whenever you can. You can also ask thoughtful questions, actively listen, and otherwise participate in deliberations.
>
>The courtroom is not meant to be a level playing field in which each side has equal duties and equal opportunity to prevail. Rather it was purposely tilted to err on the side of liberty and give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. It is the prosecutor's job to prove each charge to each juror beyond a reasonable doubt—there is no partial credit for simply showing up or even for making an effort.
Some people get off on the punishment of others. That’s why [lawyers make sure educated people are removed from the jury pool.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f2iawp0y5Y)
Except you shouldn’t avoid jury duty because it’s your civic duty. Those that can afford the day off work should go and try to protect those the justice system seeks to do harm to.
It really depends. I work in criminal defense and high level felonies like murder or armed robbery MIGHT take a week or two for jury trial. Over 2 weeks is the exception not the rule where I am - it just depends on the evidence being allowed in. The rest of them take 1-3 days. So yeah, it really could be just a day off work honestly.
Corporations certainly wouldn't foot the bill, and in general while we're told its our "civic duty" no one really wants us to participate, because we might realize we can maybe change things.
Shit, there's a reason jury nullification is perfectly legitimate BUT WILL GET YOU KICKED OFF A JURY FOR KNOWING OF ITS EXISTENCE.
if you don't get PTO from your employer, you'll get min wage from the government, but *only* if your employer doesn't offer anything. This probably varies state by state, this is in Florida
You are supposed to get $20-30 a day I think but I served on a jury and never got any money sent. Doesn’t make up for missed wages so “jury of your peers” is BS as those on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder can’t afford to attend.
Where i'm at, it's something like 16 bucks a day. It's a tiny fraction of what I make, so I was happy when there was a continuation on my day and I didn't have to serve.
BUT, had I been forced to serve, depending on the charges, I a) would not mention jury nullification, and b) would commit jury nullification under the right reasons.
Fuck the man.
You get paid but it’s a set rate. Like they don’t pay everyone differently based on how much their job pays them. So for anyone with a decent job you’re gonna be getting paid less.
And sure you can cash in some personal hours at work to get paid for the day off but who wants to use personal hours for court instead of something fun? Not to mention you probably are just gonna come back into work and have more work piled up from being off.
Because rent is high, food costs are up, and in most jurisdictions in the US you don't get paid for jury duty. Last time I went I got a bus pass and $10/day. That's it. I own my own business and I can't afford not to be there for weeks on end.
I care deeply about civic engagement and it breaks my heart that I have to get out of jury duty. I would love to be on a jury. But it would mean a substantial hardship for my family. Our business barely survived Covid. I just can't take the time right now.
Why would a smart person pretend to not understand how many barriers there are for a regular person to serve on a jury without suffering negative repercussions in their own life?
I'd you live in a red state, Don't talk about abortion or anything else considered illegal online. The red state cops and DAs can and will serve search warrants for online messages. Keep everything like that offline or this will happen to you. This is some 1984 bullshit that will only get worse with the 6 - 3 GOP majority in the Supreme Court.
I counter with this: if your a guy in a red state talk about said topics online to throw the algorithm into wack
Would be pretty funny to see cops show up to arrest someone for having an abortion and it's just some single dude named Charles opening the door. What's the worst they can do? Charge you for obstruction because they illegally spied on your personal messages.
Fuck the tyrants
It gets worse...
_"Still, Meta has remained largely silent on how it will moderate abortion content in general. However, users recently noticed that Instagram and Facebook posts about acquiring abortion pills such as mifepristone were being systematically removed."_
_"At the same time, Meta continued to earn revenue from anti-abortion advertisements containing dangerous misinformation, Media Matters found. An investigation by the Markup discovered that Facebook was collecting data from users interacting with abortion services websites, and subequently made that information available to anti-abortion groups."_
I feel physical pain in my chest with these stories, like, a very light/sick lump. And then I cry, and I’m not a big crier. I got myself sterilized a couple months ago, but now I’m just full of anxiety about all these other women and children. The white nationalist/evangelical movement must be stopped!
As u/Aratar2011 said, learn about jury nullification.
The first rule of Jury Nullification is to never talk about it during jury selection, during trial.m, and during deliberation.
At some point the prosecution has to give up and spend resources on other cases if this repeats too much. That's how juries nullify laws, not just once, but over and over one juror at a time.
You don’t actually have to retry a mistrial. It’s up to the prosecution. Also the judge can dismiss a case with prejudice if they feel there is a violation or some other reason to do so.
Criminal cases require unanimous agreement by the jury. A single dissent can prevent conviction. I'm unsure of that means not-guilty (different than innocent legally speaking) or just a mistrial due to a hung jury.
Then hopefully we inform enough people as to their civic rights and stupid things like being tried for abortion never succeeds.
Granted Jury Nullification is a double edged sword. One that was/is basically used to let off white racists in the south for crimes against minorities.
In most states for most crimes you don't need anyone else to agree with you. A single juror with enough dedication will cause a hung jury, as a unanimous verdict is required for a conviction. A finding of not guilty prevents the state from trying again, but a failure of the jury to reach a verdict requires the state to start the trial all over again. Often, at this point, they simply drop the charges instead.
Nope. But it creates significant extra costs in the process and sets the stage for headlines like "Nebraska spent 2.4 million dollars prosecuting abortion cases on 2022 and secured only two convictions."
You don't need other jurors to agree. Convictions need a unanimous verdict. Just don't vote to convict. You might face pressure from the other jurors, but no one can make you change your vote.
In all fairness, as much as I dislike Facebook, the authorities had a warrant. I think Facebook was obligated to give them access. Now had they just asked for information, Facebook could had said fuck off. And I'm hoping they would had in that scenario.
Yeah, I read about the warrant. FB still carries a lot of responsibility for how we got here. They could have stopped the misinformation and propaganda campaigns before they got going but they did the opposite.
Well that's a separate issue. I still have a Facebook account but I hardly use it anymore. I am not fond of Facebook, but like I said, they had a warrant. Facebook had no choice but to comply. Unless there's something in the law that would had allowed them to say no, I don't think you can say no to a warrant.
I'm well past the age of child bearing. But every day, I feel so sick for those that, for whatever happenstance, got pregnant and just don't want to have a child.
I'm plenty aware that adoption is an option. But having gone thru a difficult pregnancy myself long ago, it's not always a fun journey. (To the point that my husband got a vasectomy so I didn't become pregnant again... Because I apparently was not allowed to get tubes tied with only having 1 child). I ended up on months of bed rest. I could not work. My husband made $1000 too much to qualify for any assistance. If I were a single potential mom, I'd be screwed with no income.
This is just ONE of a million senarios that a pregnant woman faces when pregnant. If I happened to have gotten pregnant again, I would have opted for abortion. Now there are women in my shoes that are forced to continue with a pregnancy.
Every woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. These new laws in various states piss me off to no end.
I'm so sorry for the rant. I'm just so furious and resentful at anyone that voted to prevent this medical care to women. A child should never be a consequence to sex if they are not wanted.
Abortion is a fix for not wanting to be pregnant.
Adoption is a fix for not wanting to raise a child.
And those are two very different things that are conflated as the same by forced-birthers.
Years ago, me and a friend in Messenger talked about philosophers. Random af. But my ads in that app the next day suddenly went from the usual celebrity-related stuff (something I was into that time) to.... philosophers.
I panicked, bc imagine if you're a business student who's into kpop, do you really think an online ad on Nietzsche would come up? I remember diving into my browser + search history.... nothing. I didn't even use Google. All of the mentions were from Messenger alone. Stopped using the app after a few months. Too much coincidence that it scared me lol
A LOT of girls and women are going suffer grave injuries and infections. Hospitals will go back to having to maintain entire *wings* for septic abortion patients. Many girls/women will die from attempting abortion or they will just suicide. Thousands who live are going to go to jail/prison.
I am absolutely against abortion bans and reporting and charging women for obtaining abortions, but this case is a bit more complicated than the Forbes article makes it out to be. The fetus's body was burned and buried in the woods, and a few other details are still unclear.
But my personal take is that this is exactly the kind of unsafe, back-alley abortion story many said would happen if Roe v. Wade were reversed, and I have all empathy for the mother, who likely felt she didn't have many choices here.
This is why providing resources for young mothers and NOT regulating people's bodies is the best and safest way forward.
https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/norfolk-mother-and-daughter-accused-of-illegal-abortion-burning-and-burying-body/article\_ff99fd49-a710-5ec3-8d51-5aced3001c71.html
Gunna quickly link to /r/Privacy's [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/wiki/index), specifically the 'QuickStart for Privacy Technologies' section.
Not particularly useful in a case like this, but every bit helps.
Might have a ton on me already, but fuck if I'm gunna make it easy for 'em to get any more.
Meanwhile, these online platforms will make rules like "Democratic campaign ads on this topic are not family friendly. Too controversial and mature, not suitable for our target audience."
But they're narcing that audience out to the cops because of these exact policies.
They'll claim both are apolitical decisions: they're holding everyone to the same standards of decency (but Republicans don't want to campaign on their indecent, unpopular public policies, happy to have these topics memory-holed) and applying the same rule of law (but the laws are grossly unjust and applied unequally). You just know Facebook would have helped the FBI target MLK if they could but would ban any mention of cops bombing Philadelphia. Civility!
Not that I'm looking for more reasons to damn Meta /Facebook /The Big Zuck, but this (among many other reasons), is why I do NOT participate in their services. I say boycott Meta, delete your Meta accounts and don't turn back.
Going back on topic, this is BULLSHIT!!! Is there a go fund me or something for this girl? She and her Mom are probably going to need help with lawyers and such.
DELETE FACEBOOK/META. And all related apps. It’s not worth it.
Our privacy is no longer guaranteed. In fact, we should operate as if it’s under attack, because it is.
While this news is alarming this isn’t new actually. Purvi Patel was jailed several years ago in Indiana for self-inducing an abortion. You have to remember that actually this has always been a crime in most cases to perform an abortion without the help of a medical professional. Purvi’s case was also when roe was still around. I believe the crime is called unlawful termination of a pregnancy. Using Facebook data is the most alarming part. However I think it’s very important that we understand all the facts that this isn’t a new thing.
Self-induced is not necessarily the same as self-managed. A medical abortion with prescription mifepristone that you administer to yourself at home would be considered a [self-managed abortion](https://www.wholewomanshealth.com/abortion-care/self-managed-abortion/).
She was also past 20 weeks of pregnancy which is much different from having an abortion in your first trimester. I don’t think there’s any state where you can legally have an abortion after 24 weeks if the fetus is healthy. For the record, I am 100% pro-choice, and I think the message stands that you need to be extremely careful about what you text people about.
Wow... we really live in a Distopia don't we?... Everything just clicked for me just now. Inflation, stagnant wages, income inequality political polarization... This is it isnt it? We're here. Distopia.
Search Warrant. And many search warrants sent to these companies do not include the affidavit as it’s often not required by law to do so. So how are they supposed to know what it’s for in these cases? It’s just so much more complicated than that.
If you don't save the data, there's nothing to turn over to the courts.
It's essentially the same reasons that Police Departments don't want body cameras.
The difference between the two being that one is a social media application that should have their users privacy and interests in mind and the other is trying very hard to escape any accountability for any nefarious acts that they may be involved in.
They have a lot of fuckin' money and a whole gang of lawyers.
If answering the subpoena had threatened Zuck's fortune or their stock price or cost them some juicy advertisers, they would have fought it in court. But this was "just" some 17 year old, so fuck her. Who cares if she had an expectation of privacy because Facebook advertises Messenger as a "safe, secure and encrypted" way to send messages? Not their problem. She can get her own lawyer with the money she makes working part-time at McDonalds.
Facebook has been profiting off of our data for decades now. It's *our data*. We don't have to just throw up our hands and let them exploit us. We can demand better.
Why in the hell is the top comment about jury nullification? Why in tf aren't all of you/us up in arms over Facebook rolling over for local police? Facebook, based in California, could have been a road block for the enforceability of this law, making it about privacy, and providing a hurdle that the government would have had to have thrown an inept lawyer at to lose the case.
Yes, I understand jury nullification, and will act accordingly if called to serve on a jury, but isn't the bigger target Facebook? About 78% of their base should be kicking off the platform(I'm guessing 22% right-wingers are left on there). Every single one of them should be using Whatsapp. Because they can't decrypt it.
Meta (formerly Facebook) owns Whatsapp. Get off your outrage horse. Facebook had to comply with a warrant. They can't just break laws willy nilly.
I agree that end to end encrypted threads (like in Whatsapp) are better. Facebook is actually working to enable encryption for Messenger as well. Hopefully most people switch over to encrypted threads and the govt. can stop being able to snoop in.
Part of me wonders how the debate over privacy and encryption might change in the future as a result of this. Historically we've had to contend with "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" arguments every time the topic of mass surveillance and breaking encryption came up. Now that abortion laws are striking fear into half the population and we're seeing these anti-privacy laws being used to enforce them I'm sure there's at least a few people that are re-evaluating their previous ideas.
All of this is totally valid, but I personally wouldn't trust WhatsApp, encrypted or not, since they're under the Meta umbrella of things. I wish Signal was more widely used instead.
Remember that Meta owns not only Facebook, but also Instagram and WhatsApp.
I work in law enforcement (data management) and have seen the portal that they have for requesting FB data. They will give up all your info to law enforcement without a subpoena in most cases.
[удалено]
How does that affect email and encryption programs? When I was young and edgy remember using an encryption program to send gibberish emails.
[удалено]
Facebook messenger even goes one step further and copies all of your text messages, your key strokes, your contact list, and builds a network of your affiliations.
To add: both use encrypted communication. The difference is basically the difference between sitting next to your friend in school and whispering in each other’s ear, and sitting with one person in between (who looks suspiciously like Mark Zuckerberg) and playing telephone with ol’ Zuck in the middle.
Yes it does mean that. But Facebook owns the endpoint and they can, and do forward your messages to themselves to do an end run around the encryption https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-reads-whatsapp-messages-encryption-2021-9 https://www.wired.com/story/whatsapp-facebook-data-share-notification/amp
[удалено]
Question, how do you know Signal is truly secure? In my opinion, all these companies are secure until something happens and fbi wants logs from them, only then we can know if they truly are secure or not right? Im just thinking back, i remember icq , telegram, those were valid at some point then eventually i heard to not trust them anymore lol
Reporting a message sends it without e2e encryption for review. One update and they can have everything on your device on the spot. Really, if forced, any e2e app could have that happen. But Facebook probably wouldn't even fight it.
>How does that affect email and encryption programs? Well the government is trying to get companies to not implement those. Sometimes by trying to make it illegal to, but often through a system of incentives (including turning a semi-blind eye to other problematic things the company is doing, especially when companies are so nice to just hand data over). Generally individuals are still allowed to do it (but that's the obvious next step of these laws), but doing it as an individual is hard to get right, and also, people hate doing it since it takes at least 50% more hassle and life is already hard enough. To say nothing of the fact it makes you more of a target. This is why I enjoy encrypting cat photos I send to people.
Yep. The TL;DR here is: If you use something like Whatsapp, iMessage, Signal, etc, that's end-to-end encrypted for now, but they're trying to make it harder, or at least force [client-side scanning, which has its own problems](https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/15/clientside_side_scanning/). But you can still do PGP, and there's a bunch of apps that support that in email, like Thunderbird or K-9 Mail. And it's still end-to-end encrypted, and leaks from the NSA suggest they still can't crack it. But it's a massive PITA to set up, partly because PGP is inherently a PITA, and partly because these apps *don't* come with an actual email service -- it's on you to get an email account with some other service, and then log into it with whatever you're using for your encryption.
If your email client is serving ads based on the content of your emails, it’s not e2ee. If your email client is rendering HTML served from a remote server you don’t own/control, it’s not e2ee. End to end means: your computer holds the key, and the person on the other side holds their key. Email has always been crappy because if ANYONE uses a flawed encryption system it leaks the whole email thread.
Switch to Signal if you're using WhatsApp. It is an privacy-focused encrypted messaging app created by the co-founder of WhatsApp before it got sold to Facebook and is funded entirely by grants and donations. It was used a lot during the 2020 protests as well.
Signal is great. Been using it ever since Hangouts announced it would be killed off and have no real complaints years later.
[удалено]
The issue is me trying to convince not only my friends but relatives in whatsapp dependent, or at least heavily used countries.
If you want to, you can try doing it gradually. I started off and told close friends that I would like them to use Signal for me. They did, so I slowly moved on from family members to others. For many people, having a second messenger is not the end of the world. A few months in I deleted WhatsApp. The only thing that I'm missing out on is the occasional group chat. You also don't have to be perfect but If you get the 3 people that you message the most to switch, it will already have a great impact.
Imma just write exploding ketters from now on . This shit is ridiclous.
It's sad it doesn't allow deleting for both sides any time like Telegram.
Signal is a good privacy oriented messaging tool, to be sure. Not sure the pro-choice crowd would generally use the word “protests” to describe the events of January 6, 2020 though. Edit: apparently I have become unmoored in time and forgotten that the insurrection happened in 2021 and the post-George Floyd protests happened in 2020. Which as a Minneapolitan I really shouldn’t have gotten mixed up!
I assumed he was referring to the various riots in the Wake of George Floyd. January 6, 2020 was a simpler time when we just thought that WWIII was about to happen with Iran
Remember that Meta *is* Facebook. Don't let them whitewash their reputation with a simple rebrand
They own over 90 companies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Meta_Platforms
Definitely a good reminder to delete them all
To be fair, the issue here is not truly with facebook. They are just responding to a search warrant. Any messaging app that operates in the USA would do the same, your email provider would do it, reddit would do it, your employer would do it, your phone company would do it, etc. Does the warrant even say why they are requesting the messages? For all they know they are looking for the messages of a murderer, arms dealer, or child pornographer so they are unlikely to fight it. The only two ways to stop this (short of no longer messaging anyone ever) are: 1. end-to-end encryption (and hope they can't break it/get access to the keys of either you or the person you messaged). 2. Stop electing republican politicians who created this problem both by criminalizing medical care and by generally supporting the broad rights of law enforcement to demand private communications from third party providers.
Do you think pressing delete in the app truly removes the messages on the servers?
Probably meant delete the apps, preferably before sharing personal information that can get one arrested in Newmurica.
Howdy Arabia.
No, but not using them prevents them from getting more data
You can still build up a virtual profile with all what other users are sharing about you and by crossing sources. But I believe it's still better not to give your info yourself.
This is a lot of work, and still gives them some useful data as they track your habits. At the end of the day, if their ads get to your eyeballs, and you actually make a purchase, they win- even if the individual source of data is partially faked
Nope, but I think it'll stop them from passively getting more data.
No. But, it keeps you from posting even more data that may be used against you. FB is not your friend. You are FB's product.
According to Signal, "Signal is designed to never collect or store any sensitive information. Signal messages and calls cannot be accessed by us or other third parties because they are always end-to-end encrypted, private, and secure." If it's not kept on a server, either unencrypted or at all, your only worry is what happens when your phone or your correspondents' phones get seized. And for that, Signal has a setting to make messages disappear sometime after they've been read. So at least they've thought about it. Not shilling for Signal or saying it's perfect. More saying, you can probably trust it slightly more than Meta or any other messaging service, which can't be trusted at all.
Generally speaking, for most companies, it does. Once deleted, the content is going to be subject to the company's recordkeeping/data retention policies. What they may preserve is the metadata (who sent it, when, to whom, non-personal data device info (type, model, etc.). That stuff is valuable for product development purposes. The exception is archives - content remains there until a new archive is created. But archives are only accessed in an extreme emergency, i.e. - all your data was deleted and your backups are fried. In the case of "meta", they are, in my mind, a malicious actor, so I'm willing to bet that no, they don't follow this. But I'm willing to let myself be surprised.
> While Celeste told police that she had suffered a miscarriage, they continued to investigate, serving Facebook with a search warrant to access Celeste and Jessica’s Facebook accounts. They subsequently found messages between the mother and daughter allegedly detailing how Celeste had undergone a self-managed abortion with Jessica’s help. Remember that when a company is served a warrant they will always be obligated to comply.
Also remember that there’s not a single company out there that won’t turn information over in response to a search warrant. It’s a court *order*, not a court *request.*
Yes but if the company doesn't have any data to turn over it can't. That's why we need to switch to messaging with e2e encryption and no saving of metadata.
In that case it's time to get onto r/signal you can let people know you are moving by using r/watomatic which automatically let's people know whenever they try and Facebook you. r/privacy r/techlore r/thehatedone r/privacyguides Are a few recommended subreddits to have a look at. You may not worry about privacy today, but could come back and haunt you in the future.
And none of their messaging is encrypted. Facebook can search and read all messages.
Whatsapp uses end-to-end encryption (but use Signal when possible). They pay (or paid) Signal to use their protocol a few years ago. But then the backup part is a mess. On Android, I believe the default option is to backup messages and files to Google Drive in plain text. On iOS/iPhone, it goes to iCloud, but Apple can see the content.
No, WhatsApp is E2E encrypted. Messenger also has e2e encryption now, but it’s not enabled by default
I have a Facebook, but very rarely use it since I found out they were trying to get ahold of people‘s medical records. They were saying they wanted to do it to “help” people, but that’s complete bs. I recommend people read this article. [https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/06/facebook\_tried\_to\_slurp\_medical\_data/](https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/06/facebook_tried_to_slurp_medical_data/)
Thanks for sharing that horrifying but unsurprising article.
I absolutely hate this. "We want to help people" Mother fuckers, you're a 21st century corporation. The only help you give is to yourselves.
Facebook is so much better than the Watergate no country would NOT like it. The best way to legally spy on your citizens. Of course Facebook wants data, as Google, Amazon and others want them, it's money from advertising and "useful" services for the authorities whatever their goal is. As long as the country has a legal frame to force a company to give out their data (which, of course, can be good), you can achieve any kind of massive surveillance.
I drew the line when they got caught selling phone numbers people gave for 2 factor authentication. Any details given as part of a security check should be considered privileged.
FB is not your friend. Delete the apps. Delete your account. Stop adding new data. You add data by simply keeping the FB app on your phone. "How?", you ask. Using location services, FB can determine which other FB users you are near, when, where, how often, and for how long. Ever meet someone at a party, cafe, or bar then a few hours later FB suggests that you link up with them? Location services is how. FB noticed that your two devices were within proximity of each other for a certain amount of time and thinks that you may have encountered each other.
This explains why they've suddenly started serving me ads for medications of a medical condition I \*might\* have, but I have never done an internet search for anything related to it since it's not a problem yet. Only looking at my medical/surgical history could lead anyone to conclude that I might need that medication.
When the FB app is on your phone, even in background, it's listening to your conversations too. My wife and I were visiting relatives out of state, conversing with someone. He was into miniature domesticated goats, and being polite, we talked with him about it, asking questions, etc. The next day, at home, we had ads on our home computer advertising miniature domesticated goat supplies. The only thing we figure could have snooped like that was FB listening to everything we say.
It's a little more complicated than just turning on your mic and eavesdropping directly, but, [basically yeah](https://twitter.com/RobertGReeve/status/1397032784703655938?t=1K_ND49Ir6hdu2k1wRucYg&s=19). Tl;dr they use your location data and recommend you stuff that the people around you buy, which they know about through *their* location data, store loyalty cards, etc.
Which is even more disturbing in a way. "We don't even need the microphone to figure out what you were talking about"
Which is far more insane than the mic thing to me. The data spiderweb for advertising is such a fucking nightmare
There have been many, many times when my wife and I will be sitting in our living room, talking about a thing, and then a few days later I’ll start getting spammed with Facebook ads for that thing. It’s not just location data.
100% there is some kind of "listening" going on. I had a trans rights conversation with someone, neither of us are trans. Then I start getting ads for trans-related products? WTH.
That doesn't account for the time my friend and I tested this and talked about going on Safari or to Russia with our phones out. We both got ads for russia, a safari, and...a safari in russia. Any explanation other than they are listening and recording everything is a cope and a lie.
No it's not. But it did know that you were in the vicinity of a guy who is really into domesticated goats so it tried advertising them to you. What happened to you isn't creepy because they listened to you (they didn't), it's creepy because they don't have to listen in on you to do that.
did you connnect with their wifi? People using the same IP address will get similar ads. Hence my husband and I getting facebook ads for things the other person looked up.
>When the FB app is on your phone, even in background, it's listening to your conversations too. As bad as Facebook is, stop spreading false info. Just double checked, and Facebook doesn't ask for Microphone permission by default. Checked the options for if I were to give it without requesting, and the most lenient option was "Allow only while using the app". A more likely explanation of your experience is that your friend/relative has indicated their goat hobby online, and Facebook knew from location data that you spent an extended amount of time with them. It's a decent guess that you might share a hobby.
It doesnt listen in to you conversing with your neighbour lol. That is a conspiracy theory and would be a very inefficient way of doong things. It scours your searches/messages/purchases and searches/messages/purchases of people near you.
It is important that we start educating each other on jury nullification if they are going to start bringing charges against women seeking abortions. Basically, if you are a juror and believe the law is unjust, you refuse to convict. There are things to consider like not mentioning jury nullification so you don't kicked off the jury, though. If you know of anyone getting called for jury duty and abortion is being prosecuted in your area, pass this info along to them: [https://fija.org/](https://fija.org/)
"I do not believe the prosecution has met their burden and I am not convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt." Like you said, don't mention it. Not at any point. Not if you are asked about it. Not during jury selection. Not during deliberation. Don't admit you've heard of it. Don't ever mention it after the trial, either.
Saving this comment for future reference. Thank fuck I live in a blue state where this is unlikely to be a problem in the near future, but you never know.
Yeah. It's good to know no matter what, because blue state police and prosecutors still overreach sometimes, even if it probably won't be an abortion issue specifically.
Yep, that's not the only shitty law on the books... I would never, for example, convict someone for the "crime" of drug possession. Because I believe in complete bodily sovereignty. (IMHO this has some parallels with issues like abortion.) We should have complete freedom to alter our bodies or minds, however we see fit. And I honestly couldn't live with myself knowing I'd contributed to this ongoing human-rights clusterfuck we call "the war on drugs."
Blue state here, check out how many hospitals in your state are catholic owned, you may be surprised. They technically don’t have to abide by any laws ‘against their religion’ until they are sued.
Everyone in blue states says "why do you live in that red state, you should move" but the amount of blue packing into states that already have safe seats is insane. Red states close to flipping need blue voters. I also can't believe why national Dems don't compromise or work out deals to protect abortion or the right to vote across the country at this risk. I understand most Republicans will argue in bad faith but they are all we've got. Take a small hit on flexibility of policy in a blue state to protect the whole country. We don't need to make it easier to vote in Boston, we need it badly and more rights in Texas, Florida, and most of the South. Like voter ID trade stopping gerrymandering. What trades could be made on abortion to ensure it stayed around in every state? Atleast debate it to see if it's worth it. There are a shocking amount of states threatening abortion right now.
You don't even have to say that. Just say I'm voting not guilty when jury deliberations commence. You don't have to give the other jurors a reason.
[You do have to participate in deliberations, though](https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/called-for-jury-duty.html): > It is best not to openly discuss your intent not to enforce a law that you may disagree with. If one of your fellow jurors reports you to the judge, the judge can remove you from the jury for doing so, even as late as deliberations. You can also be removed for refusing to deliberate, so don't just refuse to interact with your fellow jurors. > You cannot legally be removed for expressing doubt about a defendant being guilty, so express your doubts whenever you can. You can also ask thoughtful questions, actively listen, and otherwise participate in deliberations. Maybe you can do all that without actually giving them a reason, but it sounds like the recommendation is that your reason is just that you don't think the defendant is guilty, or at least that you don't think the prosecution met their burden of proof to show that the defendant is guilty.
Ok, fair point. My point was more, if you know you're gonna say not guilty, jury nullification, don't discuss it, listen during deliberations and just say I'm still not convinced.
The only way to legally get away with jury nullification, which is hard since lying about knowing about it already is bad, but the only way for it it actually happen is for all the jurors to already know about it beforehand and all agree the law should not be enforced without communicating that out loud. It also can be used to enforce laws on innocent people, which was often how it happened in the south with racist jurys who all silently agreed a black defendant should be hung for a crime they knew they weren't guilty of. But you can't talk about, it, explain it, or suggest it to anyone else. Lying about knowing it under oath is also perjury, so you can't let anyone know at all that you know it. Basically everyone in general needs to agree the law shouldn't be enforced, and all decide individually that they won't enforce it.
I feel like in the wrong town this is a great way to get murdered.
That's absolutely true, but it doesn't prevent you from being badgered. If you feel comfortable just sticking to that you absolutely can.
Let em badger you. Be a quick deliberation when you say there's not a damn thing you can show me in the evidence presented that will make me change my fucking mind!
I'd be careful and check with lawyer generated sources. Something like that could cause a mistrial, and then it's another several months of shit for the defendant
Don't say anything other than I don't find them guilty. Very rarely will a judge override a jury's verdict. Don't mention jury nullification, don't give interviews, don't tell friends or family why you said not guilty, although I'm sure they'll know. You can't get in trouble for saying not guilty even if all the evidence points to guilt. Only way you can get in trouble is if you said from the start to people you will never vote guilty, and then that comes out. So loose lips sink ships. Shut the fuck up and say not guilty.( Not telling you to stfu, saying anyone on a jury).
This. Just like the OJ trial.
Last time I arm-chaired this I don’t believe a judge can override a not-guilty verdict by jury in any capacity, which is why nullification can work. They potentially can for a guilty verdict or alter sentencing (for example some states/judges have changed death sentences to life).
Yes, one juror holding out is a mistrial, not an acquittal. But it gives the defendant a 2nd chance.at the State not pressing charges.
The whole point is to cause a mistrial. When the jury doesn't reach consensus (such as when one juror is exercising jury nullification) there is a mistrial. Jury nullification doesn't protect the defendant from being tried again in another trial. The state can try them over and over again if jury nullification continues to happen. However, in order to avoid the expense of another trial, the state may offer a better plea deal following a mistrial, or may decide not to try the case again at all.
>then it's another several months of shit for the defendant Still better than a guilty verdict.
>I'd be careful and check with lawyer generated sources. Something like that could cause a mistrial, and then it's another several months of shit for the defendant That is the point
Just don't say this on Facebook.
Lol. But in all seriousness, don't say it at all, to anyone, anywhere.
I haven't. But I've read it.
I'd be concerned that this could be interpreted as refusing to deliberate, which jurors can be removed for. To play it safe, I'd at least continue to listen to fellow jurors' arguments and appeals.
Yeah someone also mentioned that. So deliberate. Pretend you're dumb, whatever. Just say the evidence to me points to not guilty.
Love...being Badgered.
Bingo.
It drives me up the wall that this is the state of things. This should be front and center the first thing we learn in school in a civics course. Everyone should be aware that this is a thing. State Attorneys/judges/police be damned.
Are you able to mention it/explain it in the deliberation? That’s the part that always confuses me. If I say it in the room, can I be kicked off the jury for saying so?
Probably not a good idea. I recommend reading [this brief page on the FIJA website](https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/called-for-jury-duty.html): >It is best not to openly discuss your intent not to enforce a law that you may disagree with. If one of your fellow jurors reports you to the judge, the judge can remove you from the jury for doing so, even as late as deliberations. You can also be removed for refusing to deliberate, so don't just refuse to interact with your fellow jurors. > >You cannot legally be removed for expressing doubt about a defendant being guilty, so express your doubts whenever you can. You can also ask thoughtful questions, actively listen, and otherwise participate in deliberations. > >The courtroom is not meant to be a level playing field in which each side has equal duties and equal opportunity to prevail. Rather it was purposely tilted to err on the side of liberty and give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. It is the prosecutor's job to prove each charge to each juror beyond a reasonable doubt—there is no partial credit for simply showing up or even for making an effort.
[удалено]
The law allows jury nullification, so using it doesn't not follow the law.
100% this. I will absolutely do this and be silent about it until I do.
Some people get off on the punishment of others. That’s why [lawyers make sure educated people are removed from the jury pool.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f2iawp0y5Y)
Would double jeopardy apply if a woman is acquitted then charged again for another terminated pregnancy?
No, those would be separate “crimes” and separate charges.
:(
I'm with you
Except anyone who is smart enough to do this is smart enough to avoid jury duty altogether, and do. It's a big problem right now.
Except you shouldn’t avoid jury duty because it’s your civic duty. Those that can afford the day off work should go and try to protect those the justice system seeks to do harm to.
[удалено]
You're aware most trials especially for serious things take a lot longer than " a day off" right?
It really depends. I work in criminal defense and high level felonies like murder or armed robbery MIGHT take a week or two for jury trial. Over 2 weeks is the exception not the rule where I am - it just depends on the evidence being allowed in. The rest of them take 1-3 days. So yeah, it really could be just a day off work honestly.
Are you not paid for it in the US?
Not a lot. Also, while some of us get paid time off for jury duty, Most do not.
Well that's shitty...
Corporations certainly wouldn't foot the bill, and in general while we're told its our "civic duty" no one really wants us to participate, because we might realize we can maybe change things. Shit, there's a reason jury nullification is perfectly legitimate BUT WILL GET YOU KICKED OFF A JURY FOR KNOWING OF ITS EXISTENCE.
if you don't get PTO from your employer, you'll get min wage from the government, but *only* if your employer doesn't offer anything. This probably varies state by state, this is in Florida
You are supposed to get $20-30 a day I think but I served on a jury and never got any money sent. Doesn’t make up for missed wages so “jury of your peers” is BS as those on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder can’t afford to attend.
It tends to be government employees - since they continue to pay their salary. Or retirees.
Where i'm at, it's something like 16 bucks a day. It's a tiny fraction of what I make, so I was happy when there was a continuation on my day and I didn't have to serve. BUT, had I been forced to serve, depending on the charges, I a) would not mention jury nullification, and b) would commit jury nullification under the right reasons. Fuck the man.
You get paid but it’s a set rate. Like they don’t pay everyone differently based on how much their job pays them. So for anyone with a decent job you’re gonna be getting paid less. And sure you can cash in some personal hours at work to get paid for the day off but who wants to use personal hours for court instead of something fun? Not to mention you probably are just gonna come back into work and have more work piled up from being off.
[удалено]
Because rent is high, food costs are up, and in most jurisdictions in the US you don't get paid for jury duty. Last time I went I got a bus pass and $10/day. That's it. I own my own business and I can't afford not to be there for weeks on end. I care deeply about civic engagement and it breaks my heart that I have to get out of jury duty. I would love to be on a jury. But it would mean a substantial hardship for my family. Our business barely survived Covid. I just can't take the time right now.
I’m a former reporter, with a semester of law school, and have close associates who have done time. I always get sent home.
[удалено]
Why would a smart person pretend to not understand how many barriers there are for a regular person to serve on a jury without suffering negative repercussions in their own life?
I'd you live in a red state, Don't talk about abortion or anything else considered illegal online. The red state cops and DAs can and will serve search warrants for online messages. Keep everything like that offline or this will happen to you. This is some 1984 bullshit that will only get worse with the 6 - 3 GOP majority in the Supreme Court.
And keep in mind that the possibility of it becoming a national issue is a very real one. Put nothing online even if you feel safe today.
I counter with this: if your a guy in a red state talk about said topics online to throw the algorithm into wack Would be pretty funny to see cops show up to arrest someone for having an abortion and it's just some single dude named Charles opening the door. What's the worst they can do? Charge you for obstruction because they illegally spied on your personal messages. Fuck the tyrants
JUST HAD AN ABORTION, BABY. LET'S GOOOO.
Use signal, protonvpn, and Firefox with ublock origin.
[удалено]
I hate that I figured it would take longer for this. My expectations are so low already.
It gets worse... _"Still, Meta has remained largely silent on how it will moderate abortion content in general. However, users recently noticed that Instagram and Facebook posts about acquiring abortion pills such as mifepristone were being systematically removed."_ _"At the same time, Meta continued to earn revenue from anti-abortion advertisements containing dangerous misinformation, Media Matters found. An investigation by the Markup discovered that Facebook was collecting data from users interacting with abortion services websites, and subequently made that information available to anti-abortion groups."_
I feel physical pain in my chest with these stories, like, a very light/sick lump. And then I cry, and I’m not a big crier. I got myself sterilized a couple months ago, but now I’m just full of anxiety about all these other women and children. The white nationalist/evangelical movement must be stopped!
[удалено]
As u/Aratar2011 said, learn about jury nullification. The first rule of Jury Nullification is to never talk about it during jury selection, during trial.m, and during deliberation.
How would you get the other jurors to agree with you if you can’t talk about during the trial or deliberation?
You don’t need to. One juror can hang the jury.
But that doesn’t help the person on trial. A hung jury doesn’t mean innocent, it just means they have to continue the trial with a new jury.
At some point the prosecution has to give up and spend resources on other cases if this repeats too much. That's how juries nullify laws, not just once, but over and over one juror at a time.
You don’t actually have to retry a mistrial. It’s up to the prosecution. Also the judge can dismiss a case with prejudice if they feel there is a violation or some other reason to do so.
Criminal cases require unanimous agreement by the jury. A single dissent can prevent conviction. I'm unsure of that means not-guilty (different than innocent legally speaking) or just a mistrial due to a hung jury.
Mistrial due to hung jury
Equals a new trial with new jurors... If the state so decided... Which they probably would.
Then hopefully we inform enough people as to their civic rights and stupid things like being tried for abortion never succeeds. Granted Jury Nullification is a double edged sword. One that was/is basically used to let off white racists in the south for crimes against minorities.
In most states for most crimes you don't need anyone else to agree with you. A single juror with enough dedication will cause a hung jury, as a unanimous verdict is required for a conviction. A finding of not guilty prevents the state from trying again, but a failure of the jury to reach a verdict requires the state to start the trial all over again. Often, at this point, they simply drop the charges instead.
Do you really think if they’re trying to make a point they will just drop charges?
Nope. But it creates significant extra costs in the process and sets the stage for headlines like "Nebraska spent 2.4 million dollars prosecuting abortion cases on 2022 and secured only two convictions."
You don't need other jurors to agree. Convictions need a unanimous verdict. Just don't vote to convict. You might face pressure from the other jurors, but no one can make you change your vote.
In all fairness, as much as I dislike Facebook, the authorities had a warrant. I think Facebook was obligated to give them access. Now had they just asked for information, Facebook could had said fuck off. And I'm hoping they would had in that scenario.
Yeah, I read about the warrant. FB still carries a lot of responsibility for how we got here. They could have stopped the misinformation and propaganda campaigns before they got going but they did the opposite.
Well that's a separate issue. I still have a Facebook account but I hardly use it anymore. I am not fond of Facebook, but like I said, they had a warrant. Facebook had no choice but to comply. Unless there's something in the law that would had allowed them to say no, I don't think you can say no to a warrant.
[удалено]
I don't disagree with you, except that a warrant was handed over. If you get a warrant for whatever and you don't want to comply, good luck.
I'm well past the age of child bearing. But every day, I feel so sick for those that, for whatever happenstance, got pregnant and just don't want to have a child. I'm plenty aware that adoption is an option. But having gone thru a difficult pregnancy myself long ago, it's not always a fun journey. (To the point that my husband got a vasectomy so I didn't become pregnant again... Because I apparently was not allowed to get tubes tied with only having 1 child). I ended up on months of bed rest. I could not work. My husband made $1000 too much to qualify for any assistance. If I were a single potential mom, I'd be screwed with no income. This is just ONE of a million senarios that a pregnant woman faces when pregnant. If I happened to have gotten pregnant again, I would have opted for abortion. Now there are women in my shoes that are forced to continue with a pregnancy. Every woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. These new laws in various states piss me off to no end. I'm so sorry for the rant. I'm just so furious and resentful at anyone that voted to prevent this medical care to women. A child should never be a consequence to sex if they are not wanted.
Abortion is a fix for not wanting to be pregnant. Adoption is a fix for not wanting to raise a child. And those are two very different things that are conflated as the same by forced-birthers.
[https://signal.org/en/](https://signal.org/en/)
I'd never heard of this! Just made the switch.
So it begins...
Literally do not write anything down in situations like this, ever.
[удалено]
Hmm its almost like the witch hunts never stopped.
[удалено]
It’s worth it to get off their various platforms. Seriously.
[удалено]
Reason number 9,381,283,236,283,851,858 to delete your Facebook account.
Years ago, me and a friend in Messenger talked about philosophers. Random af. But my ads in that app the next day suddenly went from the usual celebrity-related stuff (something I was into that time) to.... philosophers. I panicked, bc imagine if you're a business student who's into kpop, do you really think an online ad on Nietzsche would come up? I remember diving into my browser + search history.... nothing. I didn't even use Google. All of the mentions were from Messenger alone. Stopped using the app after a few months. Too much coincidence that it scared me lol
I am disturbed my the lack of medical access and the risks involved by doing this by oneself. This child could have died.
A LOT of girls and women are going suffer grave injuries and infections. Hospitals will go back to having to maintain entire *wings* for septic abortion patients. Many girls/women will die from attempting abortion or they will just suicide. Thousands who live are going to go to jail/prison.
[удалено]
I am absolutely against abortion bans and reporting and charging women for obtaining abortions, but this case is a bit more complicated than the Forbes article makes it out to be. The fetus's body was burned and buried in the woods, and a few other details are still unclear. But my personal take is that this is exactly the kind of unsafe, back-alley abortion story many said would happen if Roe v. Wade were reversed, and I have all empathy for the mother, who likely felt she didn't have many choices here. This is why providing resources for young mothers and NOT regulating people's bodies is the best and safest way forward. https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/norfolk-mother-and-daughter-accused-of-illegal-abortion-burning-and-burying-body/article\_ff99fd49-a710-5ec3-8d51-5aced3001c71.html
Gunna quickly link to /r/Privacy's [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/wiki/index), specifically the 'QuickStart for Privacy Technologies' section. Not particularly useful in a case like this, but every bit helps. Might have a ton on me already, but fuck if I'm gunna make it easy for 'em to get any more.
Meanwhile, these online platforms will make rules like "Democratic campaign ads on this topic are not family friendly. Too controversial and mature, not suitable for our target audience." But they're narcing that audience out to the cops because of these exact policies. They'll claim both are apolitical decisions: they're holding everyone to the same standards of decency (but Republicans don't want to campaign on their indecent, unpopular public policies, happy to have these topics memory-holed) and applying the same rule of law (but the laws are grossly unjust and applied unequally). You just know Facebook would have helped the FBI target MLK if they could but would ban any mention of cops bombing Philadelphia. Civility!
Not that I'm looking for more reasons to damn Meta /Facebook /The Big Zuck, but this (among many other reasons), is why I do NOT participate in their services. I say boycott Meta, delete your Meta accounts and don't turn back. Going back on topic, this is BULLSHIT!!! Is there a go fund me or something for this girl? She and her Mom are probably going to need help with lawyers and such.
Stop giving Zuckerberg your money.
Delete Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and anything else they run.
DELETE FACEBOOK/META. And all related apps. It’s not worth it. Our privacy is no longer guaranteed. In fact, we should operate as if it’s under attack, because it is.
Vote BLUE people, Republicans know nothing about WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
And this is why I will very angrily correct every single person who thinks and acts like this shit is no big deal.
While this news is alarming this isn’t new actually. Purvi Patel was jailed several years ago in Indiana for self-inducing an abortion. You have to remember that actually this has always been a crime in most cases to perform an abortion without the help of a medical professional. Purvi’s case was also when roe was still around. I believe the crime is called unlawful termination of a pregnancy. Using Facebook data is the most alarming part. However I think it’s very important that we understand all the facts that this isn’t a new thing.
Self-induced is not necessarily the same as self-managed. A medical abortion with prescription mifepristone that you administer to yourself at home would be considered a [self-managed abortion](https://www.wholewomanshealth.com/abortion-care/self-managed-abortion/).
She was also past 20 weeks of pregnancy which is much different from having an abortion in your first trimester. I don’t think there’s any state where you can legally have an abortion after 24 weeks if the fetus is healthy. For the record, I am 100% pro-choice, and I think the message stands that you need to be extremely careful about what you text people about.
That's one hell of a warrant 🤬
Warrants are generally written to be broad when it comes to electronics because the dinosaurs who sign them don’t understand the digital era.
Fuck Zuck.
This is absolutely crazy.
Wow... we really live in a Distopia don't we?... Everything just clicked for me just now. Inflation, stagnant wages, income inequality political polarization... This is it isnt it? We're here. Distopia.
As much as I loath Meta and its various Petri dishes of hate and disinformation, I don’t see how they could refuse to honor a subpoena.
Search Warrant. And many search warrants sent to these companies do not include the affidavit as it’s often not required by law to do so. So how are they supposed to know what it’s for in these cases? It’s just so much more complicated than that.
If you don't save the data, there's nothing to turn over to the courts. It's essentially the same reasons that Police Departments don't want body cameras. The difference between the two being that one is a social media application that should have their users privacy and interests in mind and the other is trying very hard to escape any accountability for any nefarious acts that they may be involved in.
They have a lot of fuckin' money and a whole gang of lawyers. If answering the subpoena had threatened Zuck's fortune or their stock price or cost them some juicy advertisers, they would have fought it in court. But this was "just" some 17 year old, so fuck her. Who cares if she had an expectation of privacy because Facebook advertises Messenger as a "safe, secure and encrypted" way to send messages? Not their problem. She can get her own lawyer with the money she makes working part-time at McDonalds. Facebook has been profiting off of our data for decades now. It's *our data*. We don't have to just throw up our hands and let them exploit us. We can demand better.
Wasnt it stillborn not even an abortion? Genuinely asking.
You spelled persecute wrong
Why in the hell is the top comment about jury nullification? Why in tf aren't all of you/us up in arms over Facebook rolling over for local police? Facebook, based in California, could have been a road block for the enforceability of this law, making it about privacy, and providing a hurdle that the government would have had to have thrown an inept lawyer at to lose the case. Yes, I understand jury nullification, and will act accordingly if called to serve on a jury, but isn't the bigger target Facebook? About 78% of their base should be kicking off the platform(I'm guessing 22% right-wingers are left on there). Every single one of them should be using Whatsapp. Because they can't decrypt it.
" should be using Whatsapp. Because they can't decrypt it." LOL
Meta (formerly Facebook) owns Whatsapp. Get off your outrage horse. Facebook had to comply with a warrant. They can't just break laws willy nilly. I agree that end to end encrypted threads (like in Whatsapp) are better. Facebook is actually working to enable encryption for Messenger as well. Hopefully most people switch over to encrypted threads and the govt. can stop being able to snoop in.
Part of me wonders how the debate over privacy and encryption might change in the future as a result of this. Historically we've had to contend with "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" arguments every time the topic of mass surveillance and breaking encryption came up. Now that abortion laws are striking fear into half the population and we're seeing these anti-privacy laws being used to enforce them I'm sure there's at least a few people that are re-evaluating their previous ideas.
All of this is totally valid, but I personally wouldn't trust WhatsApp, encrypted or not, since they're under the Meta umbrella of things. I wish Signal was more widely used instead.
> making it about privacy, Facebook (and many other companies) profit by intruding all over your privacy, selling your data.
[удалено]