It's not your fucking business. It's a private health matter. Period. You don't get to go on a fishing expedition "to get to the bottom" of anything after the fact with zero evidence of any wrong doing.
Facebook should have fought the search warrant if it, say, wanted to hold on to its most valuable demographic.
But the amount that you can be outraged at Facebook for complying with a court order is limited, rule of law (and not just rule of your opinion on what the law should be) is important. You definitely don't want people who have opposite opinions to be making up what they think the law should be.
I believe that companies should be zealous advocates for their users, just as lawyers are for their clients. Facebook was not any kind of advocate here.
You have one legal mechanism for enforcing good behavior upon capital, democracy.
Such nonsense. Corporations are a legal entity, they exist on paper. Facebook is people. People make decisions. People are not amoral.
If you think there is sufficient historical precedent to believe that shaming corporations into good behavior is an effective long term way to protect individuals then we simply disagree. I think you're wrong and believe that law is the only mechanism to ensure their behavior is pro-social.
To me, complaining about the bad behavior of capital is like being angry at the sun for burning you. IMO, you're only real option is to protect yourself.
-stop them from poisoning people
-stop them from lying to people
-stop them from endangering workers
-stop them from endangering their customers
-stop them from exploiting ecosystems unto failure
-stop them from manipulating workers
-stop them from extorting workers
-stop them from enslaving people
Up to what point? Are you saying that someone should be allowed to abort their baby one day before it would be born on its own? That would actually be a pretty extreme opinion, and would put you in a fairly small minority. Most people recognize that somewhere along the line a fetus becomes a child with a set of basic human rights just like the rest of us. The definition of that point is the entire reason we argue incessantly about it.
No matter how many times I say this someone always jumps in with "what about". Let me stop you right there. It's not your business. It's a private health matter. Period.
There's a reason we don't count unborn fetuses until they are actually born as people. Mainly the fact that so much can go wrong between those two points in time.
> Let me stop you right there. It's not your business. It's a private health matter. Period
That's literally the heart of the discussion. A lot of people don't view it to be a private health manner if you kill a fetus that would be perfectly fine on the outside world, but just hasn't made that transition yet. You're just saying "Stop talking. I'm right". Good for you in having confidence in your convictions I guess, but don't expect to convince anyone.
> There's a reason we don't count unborn fetuses until they are actually born as people. Mainly the fact that so much can go wrong between those two points in time.
Yes, and already born humans can die from natural or unnatural causes. The system is fairly good at detecting if someone died from natural or unnatural causes though, and then looking into the unnatural causes a bit deeper if it seems appropriate. How would you be able to tell if this woman (1) had an abortion(natural or unnatural), and then burned the body and buried her, or (2) gave birth at 6 months to a viable baby, and then killed her shortly after it was born?
Plenty of silicon valley companies resist laws with much larger consequences freely and mostly with impunity.
Some of the same people will be saying uber was a hero for breaking taxi laws around the world (more before it became fashionable to hate uber)
It's not like a Nebraska sheriff can hop over to California or wherever Facebook data centers are and start seizing computers until they found this girl's messages (so much of that process would be absurd).
Just look to Trump to observe what obstructing a court order looks like.
I am not, of course, a corporate lawyer. One would know appropriate procedures to delaying, opposing, or otherwise objecting and appealing an order like this.
But it's Facebook. A half a trillion dollar company can resist an overzealous prosecutor going after a single teenager by just ignoring it and ignoring the consequences of ignoring it. It is approximately equivalent to a billionare not paying a parking meter. Sure, they "have to", but nothing of consequence actually happens if they don't.
It's pretty clearly mostly men making these comments cause there's a distinct lack of awareness about how female anatomy actually works.
There is no taking of organs. It would be merely removing the parasite from the body of the host.
And from a practical perspective, how exactly are you getting rid of a 40 week old fetus? You need to effectively give birth to get rid of it, regardless of whether you kill it or let it live.
Bodily autonomy is one of the fundamental human rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
I'm very curious to know what the percentage of those people self-identify as libertarians and have "don't tread on me" decals on their vehicles.
Which folks are pretty hard core libertarians?
The really important part is: when you decide to break an unjust law, don't talk about it on surveilled platforms, they're complicit and will hand your ass in. Don't bring your smartphone with you either.
Edit: yes I understand the laws themselves are sexist, but HN users didn't write the laws, and the "all you men" fingerpointing isn't really productive. Why the men here? You have much easier and more significant targets than male HN users.
I just want to say for the record that this comment briefly had a positive score before I got dogpiled.
I do agree that it's more productive when the conversation is civil and polite - but sexism is firmly in the middle of this particular topic.
So I for one actually applaud parent for calling it out.