Hacker News Reader

Comment by omegacharlie | Hacker News Reader

Someone reading this may disagree with abortion. But if we can separate the controversy of the topic at hand from the fact a state government requested data from a private company for what is not universally considered a crime it could lead to a pragmatic discussion into data requests and privacy (i.e questionable practice of 'emergency data requests' that function outside the normal process of a subpoena[1])

[1]: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2022/03/hackers-gaining-power-of...

View on HN

The battle to get large tech companies to respect user privacy has been fought and lost (at least in the US). Systems are explicitly built that provide portals for the government to look into people's "private" data, often without any active oversight by employees of the company itself.

I'd be the first to line up to support some kind of action to change that, but at this point every large company is so closely intertwined with the State that it's a lost cause. Building out new systems that respect privacy and users is the action item here, not raging at Facebook for Facebooking.

It's also to recognize that what the Supreme Court did wasn't strike down Roe v Wade. Specifically, they struck down the idea that people do not have a right to privacy from the Constitution; thus, everything flowing from that decision is no longer supported (abortion, interracial marriage, LGBQ, etc). While some judges may attempt to argue that warrant is needed, SCOTUS has all but formally stated that "secure in your possessions" applies solely to warrants for physical items on your property. SCOTUS will likely overrule lower courts on cases. Thus, anything a company can know will be handed over.

While abortion is the hot topic, other religious purity tests will be coming, like if you have ever visited LGBQ topics. Get yourself out of the cloud. If you are minority likely to be targeted by American Christian Nationalists, do it sooner than later. Many states still have sodomy laws that haven't been just enforced.

> While some judges may attempt to argue that warrant is needed

Not sure I follow. In the case we are discussing here, Police had a warrant. Are there known cases of firms handing over personal communications without a warrant?

how can the data portals built by these billion dollar advertising corps verify the warrants?

are they reviewed by humans? is it enough to upload a blank PDF? or there is simply a checkbox with the label "i have a warrant, sure, sure"?

because in practice it could be any of these. then if there is something in the data, then law enforcement gets a warrant after the fact. how would we know?

Except in urgent cases with risk of physical harm, the default should be to challenge these requests in court, even if a warrant is offered.

They verify them with their lawyers. You know the legal team they have on staff?

Problem is that laws against surveillance aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Most constitutions prohibit surveillance, but a case of abortion is quickly elevated to a matter of national security.

In my opinion we need to scrap any exemptions to state surveillance attempts. Authorities don't act responsibly here and it is very likely that former and current governments also leverage these mechanisms for political prosecution. To provide security classical investigations remain as a tool. Access to data is convenient, but protecting this data serves a higher purpose and provides security itself. The privacy <-> security dichotomy is bad propaganda and FUD.

I think putting this story as an argument for abortion and arguing that this is not “universally crime” is hurting “pro-choice” movement since this type of abortion will not be legal even in California.

Let’s focus on real problem: this poor kid needed to wait for 22 weeks. She was probably scared, intimidated, abused, and nobody was there to help. And sure Facebook is guilty here.

What do you mean "universally considered a crime"? Would that universe just be the state that Facebook is incorporated? It seemed probable that a crime that broke Nebraska state law was committed, and that is what the Nebraska police were looking into.

Facebook is not a Nebraska company, and the user being in a separate state would make this an interstate commerce issue. Facebook would be justified (I'd personally say it's their duty to) in refusing, and letting it bubble up into the courts and let the federal government decide.

That's pretty much how it works - you file a subpoena from a foreign jurisdiction, and then the state court helps forward it, for example see Delaware § 4311

> not universally considered a crime it

That doesn't make a difference for me, and most likely for many other people who are against late-stage abortions too. Not all of us are globalists.

If you consider the concrete facts of this particular case [1] (instead of framing it as an abstract privacy or healthcare issue), I think you'd have some sympathy with people who don't find it acceptable.

[1]: https://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/nor...

If you’re not a globalist then wouldn’t you agree that Nebraska shouldn’t have jurisdiction to subpoena companies that aren’t incorporated in Nebraska? Your argument seems pro globalism

No, Nebraska is part of the United States.

But Facebook isn’t incorporated in Nebraska

Yes, but the people in question are from Nebraska.

But their data isn't in Nebraska.

If a person is accused of a crime in Georgia, and the person had a safe deposit box in Maine, the Maine bank doesn't have to immediately give Georgia police their possessions.

Facebook has data centers in Nebraska, so it's possible that their data is in Nebraska.

But even if not, because Facebook has a physical presence in Nebraska, it is subject to Nebraska law.

There are soooo many reasons why using state lines cannot protect you from a criminal case.

Firstly, Facebook clearly operates in Nebraska, and is thus subject to its jurisdiction.

Incorporation (in Delaware) is for corporate covernance, not for dodging local laws.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com