cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/1874605
A 17-year-old from Nebraska and her mother are facing criminal charges including performing an illegal abortion and concealing a dead body after police obtained the pair’s private chat history from Facebook, court documents published by Motherboard show.
When you oppose the left-wing, you’re defending this.
Facebook doesn’t use e2e.
There is a private chat e2e feature, but then your chats don’t show up on PC.
So either FB isn’t actually E2E, or their implementation is Twitter-grade broken.
She aborted at 28 weeks. That’s nearly 6 and a half months pregnant. Most babies can survive outside the womb when they’re around 22 to 23 weeks. This was a baby, not some tiny fetus.
And y’all thought China having your data was something to be afraid of.
Just yesterday here on Lemmy, I mentioned the dangers of violating privacy, and some commenters went on about “what dangers?” Implying there were none…
Is it not enough to gesture broadly?
At this point, they’ll just say “yeah, but these people did a crime. I don’t do crimes so I have nothing to worry about”. The problem with that mentality, I would hope, doesn’t need to be stated.
I stopped trying to change the world.
I agree with you, but I don’t think I could explicitly state what’s wrong with that mentality. Can you humor me and state it?
Edit: can someone else take a shot at it? Tge parent comment is essentially saying “people will counter with X, but everyone knows that doesn’t make sense”. It’s clear that something is wrong with that mentality, but it obviously would have a very real benefit of stating it’s flaws since the whole premise of this is that some people don’t know what’s wrong with that mentality.
This is the perfect example of why you should be worried. Because your government can turn into a fascist dictatorship at any time and you ain’t getting that data back.
deleted by creator
I agree that these people did a crime.
I just don’t think their crime should be illegal.
If this was about murdering a full-grown adult and not aborting a fetus, nobody would be talking about privacy concerns. Guaranteed.
We’d still be talking about the privacy part because it’d be still more concerning than the death of one random dude.
Also, there’s no general agreement or scientific pointing of where life and consciousness is started on a fetus so, if the government job is to conserve the life of a individual, a fetus life still matters and shouldn’t be taken by neither the parents or anyone else.
Brazil (ironically enough) has a good constitution about about abortion where’s it is strictly prohibited unless some cases apply like: the baby has developed no brain, the baby has originated from a sexual assault case or the process of giving birth or the pregnancy itself represents a risk of death for the mother. It is simple, states that life’s have the same values as well as showing the individual rights matter.
Why do you think a life created by sexual assault is less valuable than a life created otherwise? Isn’t the resulting life the same?
Thinking this through might help you understand the tradeoffs behind most abortions. Pregnancy is dangerous, childbirth is dangerous, parenting is incredibly difficult.
A child could push a family into poverty and devastate siblings’ futures. How do you evaluate the harm caused by that against the harm caused by being forced to carry a child produced by sexual assault?
It is not less valuable but the way it was created was against the individual rights of the mother.
I agree abortion laws are about trade-offs as I showed in my example and that’s why abortion shouldn’t be legal in the cases I stated. Abortion shouldn’t be legal for anyone cause, if it was in a consensual relationship, the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy.
The only lives that are less valuable are those which deliberately risk or take way the others’ lives.
Also, thanks for being respectful.
The only lives that are less valuable are those which deliberately risk or take way the others’ lives.
By choosing to be alive, you’re impacting all present and future generations, causing the deaths of potentially billions of humans and countless other animals. Do you see how your attempted distinction doesn’t actually exist?
I guess you don’t know much about numbers.
A child could push a family into poverty and devastate siblings’ futures.
A child can also be put up for adoption btw.
You’re joking, right? First, abortions aren’t mentioned in the Brazilian constitution - you’d have to look at specific legal codices, such as the Civil Code or the Penal Code. Second, that’s the bare minimum, not “pretty good”.
Would you be ok with someone aborting a 39 week old fetus? What about a 40 week old fetus? What about during labour?
How do you know they committed a crime. After reading the article I don’t know. It looks totally as if it’s possible that she just had a miscarriage.
Maybe there’s just a prosecutor eager for convictions.
Maybe she was trying do avoid exactly this kind of trouble.
For what it’s worth, the fetus was viable outside the womb 4 weeks before they did this. Viable at 24 weeks, aborted at 28. Pretty fucked up imo
No one has anything to hide, until they do
I once heard that “Anyone can be charged with a crime if they can be watched closely enough for long enough.”
I remember that from Don’t Take to The Police. Since gotchas I can think of is touching an eagle feather lying on the ground (endangered animals plus a market for poachers). Point being, that it’s essentially impossible to say with certainty that you’ve broken no law.
And there are so many laws that it is impossible to know all the laws that apply in any given moment. Basically, you always have -something- to hide.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/d-7o9xYp7eE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good bot!
Found the quote:
The complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just what particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation.
Stephen G. Breyer, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent
It’s used around 4:40 in the Don’t Take To The Police video.
I’m committing a crime right now, pairing this red wine with this halibut.
I would like to quote a Hungarian movie classic from 1969 (it was sitting in a box for a decade until it somehow got past the censorship):
Mutasson nekem egyetlen embert ebben a tetves országban, akire ha kell, 5 perc alatt nem bizonyítom rá, hogy bűnös! Magára is, magamra is, mindenkire!
Show me a single person in this flea-ridden country who if needed, I can’t prove in 5 minutes that they are guilty! You, me, everyone!
Other great quotes from the same movie:
Ahol nem vagyunk mi, ott az ellenség.
Where we are not, there is the enemy.
Ezeken lovagol maga? Amit a vaksi szemével lát? A süket fülével hall? A tompa agyával gondol? Azt hiszi, fölér az a mi nagy céljaink igazságához?!
Are you hung up on these things? What you see with your blind eyes? What you hear with your deaf ears? What you think with your blunt mind? Do you believe these are comparable to the truth of our great cause?
Just if you thought that these people are not the same as the commies were way back when. Authoritarians tend to be alike.
There is no way for these companies to say no to law enforcement. That is why you should stay away from corporate social media.
If you have nothing to hide… but then they just change the laws, now you are a criminal and they already have handy tools in place to convict you.
You cannot be convicted for an action that was made illegal after you comitted it. This is just Facebook sucking data and making money off others’ misfortune. I am sure that they didn’t hand over the chat logs for free. “I got nothing to hide” is exactly the reason Meta is a multi-billion company. Your agenda should be “I have nothing to gain from sharing my life with them”.
It’s like “don’t talk to cops, it will not help you”.
I am sure that they didn’t hand over the chat logs for free
They handed over the chat logs in response to a court order to do so. The gov’t didn’t pay them. They forced them.
You cannot be convicted for an action that was made illegal after you comitted it.
That was not my point. The point is, if the tech for mass surveillance is already in place and the laws change to more authoritarian or even just more dumb, it will be harder to escape those.
“I have nothing to gain from sharing my life with them”.
That is obvious not true, otherwise people would not be using social media.
Fuck Meta!!
Aside from any moral or political views, it amuses me when people do criminal acts and fail to realize police can inspect personal data like text messages, email, and social media. I think people smart enough to realize that are smart enough to avoid committing a crime in the first place. Though there are smart criminals that get away with it, you just don’t hear about them because they don’t get caught. In any case I tend to think being stupid is prerequisite to being a criminal.
Good! Next time they will be wiser
How is this in any way good for anyone involved, including society as a whole?
Learning opportunity and natural selection
I’m almost certain that if something like this happened to any fediverse instance - that a local police enforcement would contact the admin and asked for user’s data, which they are required by law to provide or they would go to jail/get a hefty fine and possibly a criminal record, they would do that too. That’s also why E2E is required, to prevent such problems for instance admins - but then again, there’s really nothing you can do against local law, and if it requires that you have to be able to cooperate, well… Then there’s not much the admin can do, without putting himself in a real risk of prosecution, because he is breaking the law by have E2E.
That’s also a good reason to be careful when selecting your home instance, and making sure that you choose one in a country that has all right laws in that regard.
Of course, that’s assuming the police makes contact. I don’t suppose that the admins would be searching through the DMs of people to snitch on them. And if Meta is doing that preemtively and is actively snitching on people - that’s downright evil.
Damn these seem like trustworthy people who we should definitely federate with.
Any and every Lemmy instance owner would hand over your DMs to law enforcement as well btw.
💀
The trouple Meta-GOP-Elon.
What year is it
1984
1984 indeed…
However, private chat messages are only one component in a whole range of digital evidence that is likely to be used by police to prosecute illegal abortions in the United States. Investigators will be able to request access to many data sources, including digital health records, Google search history, text messages, and phone location data.
1684
She was 7 months pregnant. That baby is viable outside the womb in many scenarios. It’s disgusting to abort a child at that point. The local law allows abortions up to 5 months into the pregnancy (20 weeks). That’s plenty of time to make a decision, and a pretty liberal allowance. Prosecution of this mother and daughter is justified and there is nothing wrong with Meta complying with the info request.
The article:
Court and police records show that police began investigating 17-year-old Celeste Burgess and her mother Jessica Burgess after receiving a tip-off that the pair had illegally buried a stillborn child given birth to prematurely by Celeste. The two women told detective Ben McBride of the Norfolk, Nebraska Police Division that they’d discussed the matter on Facebook Messenger, which prompted the state to issue Meta with a search warrant for their chat history and data including log-in timestamps and photos.
From Motherboard (where you also can read court documents):
The state’s case relies on evidence from the teenager’s private Facebook messages, obtained directly from Facebook by court order, which show the mother and daughter allegedly bought medication to induce abortion online, and then disposed of the body of the fetus.
According to court records, Celeste Burgess, 17, and her mother, Jessica Burgess, bought medication called Pregnot designed to end pregnancy. Pregnot is a kit of mifepristone and misoprostol, which is often used to safely end pregnancy in the first trimester. In this case, Burgess was 28-weeks pregnant, which is later in pregnancy than mifepristone and misoprostol are recommended for use. It’s also later than Nebraska’s 20-week post-fertilization abortion ban, which makes allowances only if the pregnant person is at risk of death or “serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” (Nebraska’s abortion laws have not changed since Roe v Wade was overturned).
Right, which is exactly what I said…
Yes, I’m not arguing or anything, I forgot to mention I appreciated the added context you provided. Just wanted to further expand on it for those wanting to get more context, as it seems to be a lot of people in the thread that didn’t read the article
Thanks for adding some nuance that people might miss if they just read the headline. This girl broke some long established abortion laws by aborting at 7 months like you said. She is definitely in the wrong here.
At the same time, I don’t like meta for violating people’s privacy and working with law enforcement. Make law enforcement do their own jobs.
Still, I don’t feel sorry for them. These women definitely dug their own hole. You think it would be obvious to people by now to not talk about illegal things on any social media, especially meta.
You would want to force a 17 year old (or any person) to go through pregnancy and childbirth because you personally feel that’s the right thing to do? What about her rights? Does she lose them by getting impregnated? Because that’s what you are wanting to enforce.
The baby was nearly fully formed with a face, hands, feet, and a heartbeat that could have survived outside the womb. I implore you to go look up some photos of a 28 week fetus and I guarantee you’ll be surprised how much it looks like a normal baby.
No not at all. Just don’t get an abortion at 7 months. Literally doctors won’t do it because it’s unethical at that point. Did you even read the article? Like she took a bunch of drugs illegally to abort a fetus that could just about live outside the womb.
I am extremely pro choice, but we have a cutoff point for it that science has established to prevent cruelty.
But why is that a choice society makes for her body? I have asked that elsewhere but never get an answer from people who feel women should be forced to childbirth at a certain point: do you think people should be forced to donate organs?
I don’t know why you are bringing up forced childbirth. I already said I was pro choice, and I am even antinatalist.
She made the choice to not abort until 7 months. Thats the problem here. At a certain point the fetus is considered a human and you cross the line into murder. Medical science has determined that point to be around 5- 6 months. I believe women should have every right to abort before the point the fetus is considered conscious.
When someone is pregnant, at a certain point they have made a human, and you cant just get rid of it like that. There are other options like adoption at that point. I don’t know why you can’t see the nuance here.
It is still forced childbirth, obviously, because what else are you suggesting? You think after a certain point in pregnancy a woman should have to birth the child so others can adopt it. After a certain point you think the woman loses the right to chose for her own and now society has the right to dictate that she has to continue being pregnant and birth the child. I think it is important to fully realize that this is the consequence of your reasoning.
Also, meta was served a search warrant. They were required by law to comply.
I’m trying, but it seems that unfortunately Lemmy is yet another platform chock full of people so hard left that they downvote an opinion that 7 months pregnant is a bit too far along to have an abortion… it’s insane to me that 7 months is even a debate. I’m pro-abortion up to a point. That point starts to become concerning after the first trimester. This baby was in the third trimester…
It’s disgusting to wish on women that they should lose the rights to their own bodies that easily.
She carried the baby to nearly full term. It had a face, hands, feet, and a heartbeat. It was a living being that could have survived outside the womb. Then she took abortion medication that wasn’t meant for pregnancies that far along. I’m not even religious and have always been pro-abortion, but there needs to be a reasonable cut-off point. In 2 and half more months she could have given it up for adoption.
Why should we continue birthing children when we already have so many that are insufficiently cared for?
If you, personally, would assume responsibility for this child, great, but otherwise leave it up to the individual.
The morality of having children at all is a separate point entirely. There are countless ways this could have ended or been prevented long before the fetus was viable outside the womb.
Pregnancy can never be 100 % prevented. Unless you sterilise someone. And you do not know the reasons for why this girl didn’t go through abortion earlier.
This is what “Freedom & Family” means, apparently!
