Google Deletes Abortion Location Data As Attack On Roe Completely Realigns The Privacy Debate
from the everything-changes-now dept
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s dismantling of Roe, U.S. tech companies didn’t much want to talk about their role in securing women’s data. And they didn’t want to talk much about it because they know that the privacy standards and oversight of the entire US snoopvertising economy, from adtech and telecom to app makers, media giants, and the internet of things — is an unaccountable dumpster fire.
Concerns about things like the widespread abuse of location, clickstream, or behavioral data were routinely dismissed before hardline authoritarianism came to the United States. You couldn’t step a foot in any direction without seeing a white male tech insider insisting that you don’t need to meaningfully reform privacy and privacy oversight, because consumers don’t actually care about privacy:
With the potential that women’s browsing, behavior, app, location, and other datasets could be easily purchased and abused by authoritarian state governments and vigilantes (to potentially deadly and life-destroying effect) — thirty-plus years of activist warnings are coming home to roost, and the need for reform isn’t going to be quite so easy to flippantly dismiss (not that these same folks won’t still try).
A lot of companies that made untold fortunes on the back of minimal accountability will soon face a brand new reality. The smarter ones are already getting ahead of a privacy debate paradigm shift that’s going to be fed repeated accelerant in the form of scandals that will make the Equifax or T-Mobile location data scandals look like a beach-side picnic.
After initially being silent, Google last week penned a blog post announcing it would be deleting any user location data for those that have been near abortion clinics. It’s a welcome start for a tech sector that couldn’t be bothered to even issue rote promises immediately post-Roe:
Today, we’re announcing that if our systems identify that someone has visited one of these places, we will delete these entries from Location History soon after they visit. This change will take effect in the coming weeks.
There’s not much detail on how this will work, and Google executives weren’t willing to chat about the changes with the press. Will the deleted gaps create entirely new red flags for law enforcement? What about incognito user searches? What about other sensitive data collected by Android OS and Google hardware?
Google did make it clear that having better, more ethical privacy standards and enforcement isn’t something it can do on its own, however powerful it may be:
Given that these issues apply to healthcare providers, telecommunications companies, banks, tech platforms, and many more, we know privacy protections cannot be solely up to individual companies or states acting individually. That’s why we’ve long advocated for a comprehensive and nationwide U.S. privacy law that guarantees protections for everyone, and we’re pleased to see recent progress in Congress.
To be clear, large companies like Facebook and Google do want a federal privacy law. But they want a federal privacy law their lawyers help write.
Google was also just busted for providing access to all manner of sensitive user data to a sanctioned Russian adtech company owned by the country’s biggest bank, so again, there’s often a sizeable gap between words and actions. And that gap is going to be relentlessly exposed post Roe by authoritarians that are going to push their decade-plus Supreme Court advantage as far as they possibly can.
To be clear, this isn’t an easy issue to solve. There’s no switch to flip. Companies repeatedly make it clear they’re not even fully in tune with the scope of their own data collection. Many activists, in turn, were quick to argue that if Google really wants to help, it could just collect less data overall:
The Washington Post sang a similar tune. But in a country with no federal privacy law, regulators that lack the funding, authority, or manpower to actually police privacy, a Congress that’s completely gridlocked due to multi-sector corruption, and a high court making it extremely clear that already dwindling privacy and corporate accountability are on the chopping block, that just doesn’t seem likely anytime soon.
Most of the policymaking coming out of Congress in relation to “big tech” (from Google to TikTok) is generally just performative noise designed to agitate the base or protect online political propaganda. There’s no real incentive to truly get a competent privacy law or real antitrust reform done anytime soon, and the Supreme Court seems intent on dismantling the entire regulatory state as Congress dithers.
Given government failure and the broad privacy dysfunction across telecom, adtech, apps, hardware, and media, consumers don’t have a whole lot of autonomy on privacy. That leaves the onus on corporations to do better. And corporations only act on privacy when there’s a scandal so obvious and grotesque they have no choice. The post-Roe landscape is poised to deliver those scandals in spades.
Filed Under: abortion, adtech, data collection, oversight, privacy, telecom, women's health care, women's reproductive rights
Companies: google
Comments on “Google Deletes Abortion Location Data As Attack On Roe Completely Realigns The Privacy Debate”
There have been many stories, articles and postings about all of the data collection being done by Personalized Tracking Devices(PTD) aka smartphones, connected cars, stores, banks, medical places, and etc and yet most people still carry and use their PTD all the time. Many show signs of withdrawal if their PTD is out of reach for more then a few minutes. Pretty clear that most folks have voted with their actions that they really don’t care about privacy.
If someone is worried about being tracked to a place where certain things are done, better leave that PTD at home and take a transport system that doesn’t function as a PTD. Pay for the services with cash.
Google and others stating they support a strong privacy bill is in the same alternate reality world where President Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States of America claims he supports a Slave’s Rights Bill.
Re:
Google and others stating they support a strong privacy bill is in the same alternate reality world where President Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States of America claims he supports a Slave’s Rights Bill.
Except if someone’s a slave, then they’re considered property and therefore have no rights. If course, you wouldn’t have missed that point if you were arguing honestly.
Re: Re:
What about my comment makes you think it is dishonest or that I missed the point? Google and other tech companies consider people using their PTDs as things producing product(data) that Google can sell. Not all that different then how a plantation owner viewed slaves working the fields producing crops for sale. Google no more wants a real privacy bill then the CSA wanted the Emancipation Proclamation.
Re: Re: Re:
Show me the contract Google signed to show it owns actual human beings as chattel. (-_Q)
Re: Re:
Slaves in the USA did not have literally zero rights; they had three-fifths of a vote, for example (in theory…). But back to the point, the hypothetical intent of both parties (Davis and Google) would be similar: they would want to codify what they can do—with their slaves, or with the private information of their users—to pre-empt any pesky state laws that might get in their way. Don’t assume “strong” will work in your favor.
States are starting to pass privacy laws, and assert state-Constitutional privacy rights, and when there’s no federal law on the subject, those can be legally binding to Google et al. A patchwork of 50+ laws could make it difficult to sell user data (or target advertising etc.) at all. A federal privacy law covering the same area as the state laws would completely pre-empt those state laws/Constitutions, as well as any state courts.
Re: Re: Re:
During the original ratification of the Constitution, neither the North nor the South wanted the slaves to vote or have their vote count. The South wanted their slaves to count for the census so they could increase their share of representatives in the house. The North didn’t want that so they would have a greater share of representatives (If you think NYC, Boston, and Philadelphia are populous now, they were even far more so back in the colonial era). The 3/5 compromise was the solution until the civil war amendments to the constitution were passed.
Re: Re: Re:2
Thanks for the clarification. I’m not American and I misunderstood. So, slaves couldn’t vote, but I’m pretty sure they still had rights, e.g. technically one couldn’t just kill them as one would with an animal. Probably one could get away with it, but there’d at least need to be the pretense “they were attacking me” or whatever.
Re: Re: Re:3
They weren’t considered people, they were property and the owner could do whatever they wanted without question.
Re: Re: Re:4
Wikipedia says “In North Carolina, slaves were entitled to be clothed and fed, and murder of a slave was punishable. But slaves could not give testimony against whites nor could they initiate legal actions. There was no protection against rape.”
So, one could probably do whatever one wanted. Technically, some of it would be illegal, and just never prosecuted (and, anyway, what jury would convict a slave owner?). In that sense, slaves had “rights” but they were meaningless.
Re: Re: Re:5
Something something like people driving while black.
Re: Re: Re:3
Just as it’s not considered vandalism to break something that belongs to you, so it wasn’t considered murder to kill a slave because they were considered to be private property, not people.
Re: Re: Re:3
“So, slaves couldn’t vote, but I’m pretty sure they still had rights, e.g. technically one couldn’t just kill them as one would with an animal.”
Actually, no. Slaves in certain ancient empires could possess rights but the US south didn’t go with that.
A fairly common method of discouraging runaways in the american south was to burn the offending slave alive while the rest were forced to watch.
Re: Re: Re:4
A fairly common method of discouraging runaways in the american south was to burn the offending slave alive while the rest were forced to watch.
Oh, thanks for that image. That’s fucking horrible.
Re:
That doesn’t follow. Say you want a flagship smartphone with a headphone jack. If you are forced to choose one or the other, and end up buying a flagship, it doesn’t mean you don’t care about headphone jacks.
All you can infer is that a person who brings their PTD along with them cares more about the substantial convenience features a PTD offers than the invasion of privacy. Or, also possible, that that person doesn’t fully grasp the extent and risks of loss of privacy, and therefore isn’t in a great position to evaluate the tradeoff (but would care a great deal if they understood the privacy issues).
It’s increasingly difficult to function in our society without being tracked. And impossible to function efficiently. Yeah, you can buy or print out paper maps/directions, leave your smartphone at home, ride your bike to avoid the car’s built-in tracking and law enforcement’s ALPRs, and pay in person with cash.
The more that the world (and its products and services) expects everyone to be online, the greater the inconvenience for those who do prioritize privacy, and therefore the less you can infer that people don’t care about privacy.
Re: Re:
I think it’s important to take actions, where still possible and reasonably convenient, to avoid privacy invasions. Cash, for example, is still accepted almost everywhere and is not particularly difficult to use. Mapping data can be accessed over Tor without providing one’s actual location (try to avoid inputting exact addresses; maybe just zoom to the general area from the world view). Talking about biking is a whole can of worms, but if it’s practical and reasonably safe, it’ll also give health benefits, and as more people do it it’ll eventually trigger infrastructure improvements for others. I know people feel naked without their phones, but it’s easy enough to put them into airplane mode or turn them off till they’re needed (or, if just for emergency use, a phone with no paid service can still call 9-1-1, which might ironically make a “tracfone” the best option). For store loyalty cards, try saying you forgot yours and your phone number is 867-5309.
Re: Re: Re:
For store loyalty cards, try saying you forgot yours and your phone number is 867-5309.
I’m not giving the store your phone number when getting my loyalty points. They’re mine; why the hell should I give them to you?
Re: Re: Re:2
Uhh, thats possibly the most famous phone number in America.
it’s from a song called Jenny, by Tommy Tutone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTdTwcmxyo
Re: Re: Re:3
I would say in Canada as well, since Canada also has the +1 (XXX) XXX-XXXX numerical structure for its phone numbers.
Re: Re: Re:3
I already knew that, I was just joining in on the joke. If I honestly felt that strongly about it, there’s an appropriate emoji I could have added.
Re: Re: Re:
Hahaha…. You seem to be unaware of the cameras. Every fucking where, cameras. And I see lots benefits to cameras too, don’t get me wrong. But I would like to be able to take a walk around the neighborhood and not be tracked by the condo association- I know those people have way too much time on their hands. They also collect a significant amount of information about all the residents, and we have no idea how secure that info is or who they might share that data with. Businesses use security cameras inside and out, tons of people have Ring and other private consumer cameras. Plus the assorted traffic cameras, and police surveillance cameras in certain neighborhoods, oh and drones. I was surprised none of the drones people were flying near fireworks got knocked out of the sky. I like to sit out on the balcony in the evening and I have noticed a lot of drones out after dark, some seem to be the same ones out night after night.
And who knows how much police are actually using facial recognition software, they buy the toys they want. Depending on how secure the camera networks are, some weirdo could be keeping careful track of neighbors routines and habits, find basic information like their name and age online for free.
Our privacy doesn’t exist in the same ways it used to, we can’t all float on anonymously, just another nameless face or faceless name. So we should be taking steps to protect our digital privacy, and demanding more from the 3rd parties we have trusted with our personal information. I’m not going off the grid, it’s simply not reasonable when you have a little kid in school, or elderly relatives (who will climb up on ladders or drive after dark if you don’t respond or are late to arrive). I’ve driven past a few bodies under sheets, and my friend was killed by a drunk driver who didn’t even hit the brakes until Edward was up over the roof the car, so biking and walking along the main roads is not conducive where I live. I do drive a 20 year old car, which is my mom’s and is registered all to her, so I get a little bit of anonymity with it. I don’t like to carry much cash, I am prone to losing it; so far Chime hasn’t been hacked that I’m aware of. I guess they aren’t as attractive to would be fraudsters as BofA, where there are more credit worthy consumers to snatch identities from. Even though my credit is garbage now, in a few years it will be pretty clear, and I might even be making some money so I don’t want that potential lost so I’m still vigilant.
I live in a state where abortion is protected, they even strengthened the protections last session. I don’t plan on moving, but I know that I might not have a choice some day. So I still care about even the measly protections some tech companies are willing to offer, and I hope consumers will continue the pressure.
Re:
Sure… let people concerned for their privacy just drop a couple of quarters in the nearest pay phone, instead. I mean, there’s a phone booth on every other corner anyhow, and secure internet terminal kiosks in pretty much every coffee shop too. Right?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I am a consumer who doesn’t actually care about privacy, so we do exist. The people who make a fetish out of privacy are using Dobbs as a way to stoke fears.
Re:
I am a consumer who doesn’t actually care about privacy, so we do exist.
Meaning you don’t have a door on your bathroom? Great, should make it easier for me to reproduce the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, except with you as the target. You just need to tell me where you are still.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
That is, I do not care about internet privacy in there same way that the privacy fetishists do. I have location tracking enabled, I am continuously logged in to my Google account, I accept all cookies, and I do not block any ad trackers. I also use urinals in public restrooms whether or not there are barriers between them.
Hopefully, before too long the government will confiscate all privately owned AR-15s, and your posts will enable them to track you down and take yours as well.
Re: Re: Re:
Hopefully, before too long the government will confiscate all privately owned AR-15s…
It’ll be a cold day in Hell before the NRA allows that to happen and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is overturned so corporate lobbying is disallowed, but in the meantime, tell me where you are so I can have my game of the Manhunt for Osama bin Laden.
Re: Re: Re:
… said nobody who wasn’t a complete piece of shit, ever.
Re:
really? you say you don’t care about privacy? What’s your partners favorite sexual position? how about yours? what’s the most recent pron video you watched?
Where do you bank? where do you live?
whats the balane of your bank account right now, and the routing and account number?
whats your social, if you’re american?
what car do you drive?
where do your kids go to school?
what are your family’s measurements, including penis/breast sizes?
Oh, was i being too invasive? so you do care about privacy, after all 🙂
Re: Re:
Exactly. Unless you’re George Harrison and/or his monkey, you’ve definitely got something to hide.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Not being concerned about privacy does not mean volunteering to give information to anyone who asks for it. If you want all those questions answered, you will need to do the work to discover the answers without my help.
Re: Re: Re:
In other words, you do care about privacy.
Re: Re: Re:2
And you expected something other than dishonesty and hypocrisy from a troll? Everyone knows they’re the Republicans of forums and comments sections. 😉
Re:
I am a consumer who doesn’t actually care about privacy, so we do exist.
We never said fools didn’t exist.
Re:
Once the “undesirables” are dead, you’re next, Hymen.
And, oh, I hope you’re not on any Interpol watchlists due to identity theft. Since you clearly consent to your identity being used for criminal things too.
Or maybe you are one of those identity thieves. I wouldn’t know.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Raising unrealistic scenarios in order to frighten people into behaving the way you want is as old as the hills. It’s not going to work on me, and it’s not going to work on a lot of other people.
Re: Re: Re:
So why do you keep on doing it?
Re:
It’s a well-known fact that idiots exist.
Re: Re:
It’s also a lesser known fact that they know better how to behave than Hyman Rosen. 😉
This is the news to which I alerted everyone last Friday, so thanks for the attribution, Karl. ಠ_ಠ
Re:
Techdirt has a story submission page. They only attribute the first person to report a story, and then only if Techdirt hadn’t already started looking at it.
You put a public mainstream news article in the comments section 3 hours after it was published. Techdirt is great at catching late friday news trying to avoid the news cycle. I think its entirely reasonable to assume that by the time anyone got to your comment, they had alrady come across some version of the press release, were already on it, and the glare is a bit inappropriate.
Re: Re:
Techdirt has a story submission page.
Which I have found inaccessible due to continuing site bugs making the link unlocatable. It wouldn’t surprise me if Autie’s in the same boat.
Re: Re: Re:
Which doesn’t position autie any better as the source of techdirt’s knowledge of a google blog post based soley on Autie’s posting of a comment linking to a CNBC article about the google blog post.
Re: Re:
Techdirt is great at catching late friday news trying to avoid the news cycle. I think its entirely reasonable to assume that by the time anyone got to your comment, they had alrady come across some version of the press release, were already on it…
Links.
and the glare is a bit inappropriate.
And you’re the arbiter of what’s inappropriate, plagiarist apologist?
Re: Re: Re:
Plagiarist?
Autie called out an author on the assumption that their comment prompted this story and they should have had a citation. Even in the case Autie is correct, Nothing I defended is plagiarism.
Re: Re: Re:
Autie and karl provided links. I refrenced Autie’s pre-existing link. I don’t need to resource Autie’s link.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s your third doubling dpwn on this, so I guess the accusation that was made is correct.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s not how anything works… at all.
Re: Re: Re:4
So why do you say it to the likes of Koby, then?
Re: Re: Re:5
Because he, unlike you, is literate.
It’s nobody’s fault but yours that blindly copypasting text you’ve seen fails to get traction because you can’t comprehend the factual context behind the original version’s success thst your parroting lacks.
Re: Re: Re:6
Because he, unlike you, is literate.
Every accusation a confession.
Re: Re: Re:7
Considering the indisputable fact you just confessed to being unable to comprehend even the username of the posts you troll…
Re: Re: Re:8
And now you’ve employed the trolls’ favorite trick of projection. I don’t think you’re learning anything useful here, pardner.
Re: Re: Re:8
Considering the indisputable fact you just confessed to being unable to comprehend even the username of the posts you troll…
[Citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:9
Is it reall that hard for you to look down and see the troll’s adjacent post sitting right there?
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/07/06/google-deletes-abortion-location-data-as-attack-on-roe-completely-realigns-the-privacy-debate/#comment-2289987
Re: Re: Re:10
Is it reall that hard for you to look down and see the troll’s adjacent post sitting right there?
That’s not your post, but nice attempt at lying.
Re: Re: Re:6
When have you ever seen me “blindly copypasting text”? The truth is that you’re just a troll, flinging hypocritical accusations when you don’t like what’s been said. You accuse me of illiteracy, but I’m not the one making spelling mistakes, Phillip.
Re: Re: Re:7
All your hypocritical accusations when you don’t like what’s been said. There are large amounts of them to be foundhere and here, though I know you lack the intellectual homesty to own up to your actions.
Your concave-cranium non-contribution of
is exactly what I’m talking about. You took the truth and turned it into a lie by removing what made the original true. Someone able to grasp context wouldn’t have been stupid enough to attrempt that. But you’ve proven time and again you’re icapable of understanding what you read. Unlike me, you have never once provided any contributions of any substance, as you project in your hypocritical attacks on me.
Re: Re: Re:8
You’re either a liar or delusional. You do know that the AC nym is used by more than one individual… Actually, never mind. It’s quite clear you don’t.
Re: Re: Re:9
Being able to spot your distinct pattern of behavior is a “rational human being” thing; you wouldn’t understand.
Re: Re: Re:10
If two people having similar (to you) behavior means they’re the same individual, then Chozen, Koby and Hyman Rosen must all be one person because they all go into anti-trans rants. You’re right, you don’t understand human being-type things at all.
Re: Re: Re:11
How many obsessively launch the same projection-based loes against the same innocent target as “Raziel” with more than one set of two posts being in the same sub-five-minute window of time? Who else but AC/Raziel would cheerlead their comments, when no real thinking human being could do so? Why else would AC/Raziel have been the first to freudianly admit to that tactic, if they weren’t guilty of it?
Re: Re: Re:12
Why else would AC/Raziel have been the first to freudianly admit to that tactic, if they weren’t guilty of it?
Links. You’re the only one using Freudian tactics here, especially regarding misspelling.
Re: Re: Re:12
James Burkhardt is provably a bully, so hardly qualifies as innocent, unlike those he attempts to drive to suicide.
Re: Re: Re:6
When have you ever seen me “blindly copypasting text”? The truth is that you’re just a troll, flinging hypocritical accusations when you don’t like what’s been said. You accuse me of illiteracy, but I’m not the one making spelling mistakes, Phillip.
Re: Re: Re:7
Oh, the irony from the pathologically projecting AC
Re: Re: Re:8
A double post created by a website with fluctuating code is “irony” and “pathological projection” only in your pathological imagination. I was right, you’re a troll.
Re: Re: Re:9
Only your strawman made that claim; nobody literate could possibly see anything like that in my comment on your obviously using the wrong poster’s name in your blind trolling.
And thanks for providing yet another example of you throwing around words you don’t know the meaning of to continue proving me right.
Re: Re: Re:10
Nice try, but I don’t use any name when posting. That’s why I’m always an AC. So you’re not just a troll, you’re a hypocritical troll that accuses others of putting up strawmen to deflect from your own.
Re: Re: Re:11
They’re also a liar, claiming you’ve provided evidence of something when the only evidence I can see proves the opposite.
Re:
Something to remember is we never know what they are already working on & sometimes we hit on things around the same time.
I’ve submitted story ideas that then show up on the site, but we were just parallel paths.
I can see a market in this!
Depending on how Google implements this, this might spur a movement towards “Privacy Tourism”. On a regular basis, the “tourist” will travel past, stop near, or etc one of the “data removal locations” specifically to get their location data excised.
As opposed to, y’know, forcing app makers to obey “don’t track me” directives…
Re:
From what I read in the article I linked to on Friday, Google will only remove the location data pertaining to visits to clinics offering abortions for people who live in states where reproductive rights aren’t respected.
Re:
Does refusing to grant location permission not work?
Re: Re:
And, also, Google are claiming that location tracking is optional, and people could disable it outright. Actually, they’ve gone so far elsewhere as to claim it’s opt-in, about which I have serious doubts. A family member was a little freaked out the first time they got home and their Android phone asked “how was your visit to (the mall you were just at)?”.
(And more than one person has remarked about how they’ve seen ads for something they never looked at online but had a recent in-person conversation about. Or how they won’t look up something online for fear of “getting on a list”. For all the talk of people not caring about privacy, it seems they feel more helpless and uneasy than actually apathetic. I think it’s going to backfire on Google et al.)
Re: Re: Re:
And more than one person has remarked about how they’ve seen ads for something they never looked at online but had a recent in-person conversation about.
I was speaking with someone about that recently, and it turned out they had given permission for personalised ads. I advised them to rescind the permission, and they replied that they thought it was essential for full functionality of Google Play. I explained that it didn’t seem to impact anything important based on my personal experience, and if it did, they could always get apps from another store such as F-Droid or APK Pure and sideload them. She switched all the permissions off and has never been spooked since.
Re: Re: Re:2
Forgot to add: Alexa was a part of the problem for the person I was speaking with, but turning off personalised ads is what solved it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hmm. I figured it was something like that, though they swore they’d never viewed anything related on their phone or computer. They definitely don’t use voice assistants. Still kind of creepy, if they can really predict what people are going to talk about. Why not just serve Google a subpoena for the list of people they think are likely to want abortions?
Re: Re: Re:3
Please see my reply where I added information about Alexa, because that was exactly what spooked my colleague. She hadn’t knowingly searched the advertised product online either, but it turned out that her Amazon Echo Dot had overheard something she said to her husband.
Re: Re: Re:3
I figured it was something like that, though they swore they’d never viewed anything related on their phone or computer. They definitely don’t use voice assistants.
Either Google’s psychic or someone’s lying. Guess which is the more likely scenario?
Re: Re: Re:4
Or, I think most likely, it’s some combination of confirmation bias and extrapolation from data they didn’t think was related. Possibly even data collected from their other devices and their friend’s/family’s devices.
For example, Google might be able to infer from certain pregnancy- and medical-related searches that someone’s likely considering an abortion. Even if the person carefully avoided ever searching that word.
Re: Re: Re:5
For example, Google might be able to infer from certain pregnancy- and medical-related searches that someone’s likely considering an abortion.
No. All Google will be able to infer is that either the person’s pregnant or is the SO of someone who is. You… don’t understand how search engines work, do you?
Careful. They didn’t say that; they said “if our systems identify that someone has visited one of these places”… (medical clinics, shelters, etc.) “we will delete these entries from Location History soon after they visit.”
That’s different from deleting the data of people near those places. Based on Google’s statement, anyone with a gap in their location history either inhibited/deleted the data themselves or actually visited the clinic.
On the more general subject, has anyone investigated the legal status of using federal buildings, military bases, national parks, etc., for abortions? My (very limited) understanding is that they operate as enclaves where the enclosing states don’t have criminal jurisdiction.
Re:
I wouldn’t worry about gaps in data until the law goes from allowing private lawsuits against people visiting family planning clinics to actively prosecuting them for doing so, and I don’t think even the current SCOTUS will allow a First Amendment violation like that.
Re: Re:
TYhe issue here is states making their laws apply extraterritorially.
That is why I have no problem with giving out information how to avoid the extraterritorial portions of any laws. If states where abortion is illegal do not like that I give out that information, they can all blow off. Giving information does not break the law.
Re: Re: Re:
Giving information does not break the law.
It does in an anti-reproductive rights state.
Re: Re: Re:2
Also with the DMCA (Bunnie Huang has an ongoing lawsuit about it), or talking to North Koreans about Bitcoin, or with certain topics like nuclear research.
Re: Re: Re:3
The DMCA is a federal law, though. A state making an anti-reproductive-rights law should have no jurisdiction other than within its own borders.
Re: Re: Re:4
A state making an anti-reproductive rights law should have no jurisdiction other than within its own borders.
I don’t think we’re the ones who need to be told that.
Re: Re: Re:2
Becuase I am using Tor combined with VPN, I cannot be traced.
There were these clowns back in 2008 in Usenet newsgroups saying I was breaking the law giving information for dual nationsls living outside of the USA on how to avoid the travel ban on Cuba by avoiding any US connecting city.
Merely giving information of what flights to take to avoid a US connecting city to be able to travel to Cuba and not be detected by US authorities, did not break any law.
Re: Re: Re:3
Merely giving information of what flights to take to avoid a US connecting city to be able to travel to Cuba and not be detected by US authorities, did not break any law.
Because there’s not yet any law against giving that kind of information. Your point?
I dunno how much longer BigTech will be able to do anything to protect people…
I mean its not like a crazy religious group was hanging out with members of SCOTUS praying on things & then had their brief cited in over turning Roe v Wade… Oh wait that did happen.
I get people are worried about the Gestational Gestapo that is getting warmed up but I think the bigger concern needs to be the Christian Taliban have control of 1 branch of government that can & will alter the laws of the nation to the will of zealots.
Its really sad it takes someone admitting they did this on a hot mic & even still people don’t think its a big deal.
I think some abortion clinics are already using jammers to foil location data.
When I had to drive to one place for an eye exam, my GPS app crasyhed any my cellular data link briefly went down.
After doing some research I found that I drove right past one abortion clinic when my GPS crashed.
So clinics are jamming GPS and/or cellular data to prevent location tracking from ever happening
That abortion clinic is not breaking any California laws by deploying a jammer to prevent location data from being collected or transmitted to throw off law enforcement in states where abortion is illegal.
They are not breaking either California law, or any FCC rules by deploying that jammer.
The only thing I could see ever happening is states where aboortion is illegal is proseuting that clinic in their states for obstruction of justice. That is the only thing they could be prosecuted under, if states where abortion is illegal choose to go that route.
Obstruction of justice – yes
Breaking FCC rules -no
Re:
So clinics are jamming GPS and/or cellular data to prevent location tracking from ever happening.
No, they’re not because radio jamming is illegal in the US, and that includes data. Now stop backing yourself with lies just because your assertion was proven to be false back in May.
Re: Re:
When I drive in the area where this clinic is, my GPS app crashes and my data goes down, so I can say they are doing it. I end up having to get off the road to restart my GPS app.
And some jamming cannot be outlawed.
For example, when I go through Reno and stop at one McDonald’s my Bluetooth.
I figured out that one or more of the nearby service stations are jamming Bluetooth to jam “skimmers” that some people put in gas pump credit card readers to steal card information. Some of them do use Bluetooth.
The service station using that Bluetooth jammer has a right to do it because they are protecting their property.
There is still a constitutional right the private property, so the service station, or stations, on the block that are jamming Bluetooth have a legal right to do so to protect their property, and any attempt to stop them would violate their property rights.
The abortion clinics, as long as they remain legal in California, have a legal right to protect their property and the privacy of their customers.
Drivers who have their GPS units jammed, when they pass by, just have to live with that, because the abortion clinics, as long as they remain legal in California, have a right to protect their property.
Re: Re: Re:
I guess if, theoretically, the jamming signal never passed the edge of their property, it would be reasonable for a court to accept this argument. But as soon as it affects someone just “passing by”, they’re gonna lose. Even prisons can’t legally run jammers (yet).
Re: Re: Re:
First of all, Bluetooth is also radio, and therefore can’t be jammed by McDonald’s, gas stations, or anyone else because it’s illegal to do so. Secondly, stop doubling down with more lies, using one illegal act to ‘prove’ that another is regularly committed.
Re: Re: Re:2
With the bad guys using Bluetooth based skimmers to steal credit card data, service stations have a right protect their property by jamming Bluetooth. They are protecting their assets.
America still has private property rights and I say service stations are jamming Bluetooth have a constitutional right of private property to do so.
Re: Re: Re:3
If a gas station jams Bluetooth, it’s to protect customers’ money. But they don’t because it’s illegal to do so. Instead, the prevent fraud and protect their property by checking there are no card skimmers on the pumps, and removing them if there are. Are you deliberately obtuse, or is it a fashion statement?
Re: Re: Re:4
Jamming Bluetooth does not break federal law
Re: Re: Re:5
Bluetooth is a radio signal. Jamming radio signals is illegal in the US. Now STFU, lying troll.
Re: Re: Re:2
Saying something can’t happen because it’s illegal is ridiculous. We have prisons full of people that have done such things. But I can’t imagine McDonalds or gas chains are illegally jamming as a matter of course. It’s unlikely they’d care enough to pay their lawyers to try the “we say we have a Constitutional right to do it” defense.
Re: Re: Re:
There is still a constitutional right the private property, so the service station, or stations, on the block that are jamming Bluetooth have a legal right to do so to protect their property, and any attempt to stop them would violate their property rights.
Your lies are inelegant, dude. Service stations don’t protect their property by jamming Bluetooth, they do it by checking the pumps to ensure no skimmers have been fitted to them, which they have a duty to do to protect their customers from fraud.
'Oh look at that blank spot, what could it be...'
Yeah, so long as they’re just removing location data related to abortion clinics they might as well not bother since that glaring blank spot will just be rightly seen as a visit to one of those locations by anyone digging into the data.
I mean, it’s better than just keeping the data but unless they take several more steps beyond that point this strikes me as an empty PR stunt, not really something worthy of praise.
Re:
Those “well to do” women, as Sen. Warren puts it, could also pay in Bitoin for their services.
Bitcoin, if done right, cannot be traced.
And then all they would have to do is use something like KillDisk or Evidence Eliminator to wipe the evidence off their computer hard disk. No evidence = no CASE.
This is why I see Bitcoin reversing its decline and going back up, fast, when well to do women start paying in Bitcoin to throw the law off in their home states.
I would also suggest buying stuck in companies that make programs like KillDisk and Evidence Eliminator, as I think their sales are going to go sky high once well to do women learn how to wipe evidence off their hard disks.
Re: Re:
And howany times are you gonna be able to do that before you get caught? Twice? Three times tops?
Re: Re: Re:
Once EE, KillDisk, or a program like it has been used, any evidence in the hard disk cannot be recovered.
I use such programs when I buy a new computer, becuase you don’t know what the techs who put it together might have done.
This way, anything I don’t know about on the hard disk that could get me in trouble is totally wiped out and cannot be recovered.
I am not breaking any laws by using secure wiping on a new computer, and then re-installing the operating system.
Wiping out anything I do not know about that could get me in trouble does not break any laws.
When I ran my online radio sation out of Australia, it was company policy to wipe and reinstall the OS on all station equipment before crossing internetional borders.
We were not breaking any laws in Australia, or elsewhere by wiping and reinstalling the OS and all porograms before station equipment were taken through customs in Australia, or elsewhere.
Re: Re: Re:2
Once EE, KillDisk, or a program like it has been used, any evidence in the hard disk cannot be recovered.
Now I know the reason you keep pushing KillDisk. No thanks, I don’t want your ransomware, black hat hacker shill.
Re: Re: Re:3
Any kind of wiping program will do. It just happens that EE and KillDisk are my favourites, but you can can use any wiping program to wipe your hard disk where evidence cannot be recovered, and once the OS and all your programws are reinstalled, they will have no way to know you previously wiped your hard disk.
There are lots of wiping programs out there that can obliterate evidence on your hard disk. Just find the one that suits you the best
Re: Re: Re:4
Unless the software overwrites as it deletes, then the data can still be recovered by forensic analysts. Also, a hard drive that’s completely clean looks mighty suspicious, don’t you think? So, you go all paranoid and get caught, and I’ll just keep doing what I’m doing and sail past with my head well above water.
Re: Re: Re:5
However, we were not breaking any laws by using wiping tools at the maximum level of destruction and then reinstalling the OS and programs.
A clean hard drive with the OS and programs re installed are not enough to arrested in Canada, Australia, the US, or the UK.
It was company policy to securely wipe and reinstall before equipment traveled internationally.
Companies that have that policy are not committing any criminal acts in Australia, Canada, the US, or the UK. Other countries laws will vary, but is not a criminal offence in those four countries to wipe and reinstall.
We had that policy, and if CBSA, CBP, Australia Border force, or HM Customs did not like that, they could just rack off.
Re: Re: Re:6
…but [it] is not a criminal offence in those four countries to wipe and reinstall [if it part of the policy and occurs regularly as part of that policy].
Wipe and reinstall or don’t reinstall, it’s still obstruction of justice if done to avoid the law because law avoidance is looked on more harshly than tax avoidance.
Re: Re: Re:7
It is not a crime to wipe and reinstall before crossing borders, at least in Australia, Canada, Britain, and the UK.
When I had my online radio station, it was company policy to wipe station equipment and reinstall before taking it across borders.
We were not breaking any laws in Australia, Canada, the US or UK by wiping station equipment and reinstalling before taking any of it on trips abroad.
I do that when I go to San Diego, just in case I accidentally cross into Mexico because one restaurant which is at the last exit before the border is the closest place to downtown hotels to get breakfast.
Before I go to San Diego, I wipe my laptop and reinstall and I encrypt and then reset my phone. Anything that was there before the phone was reset in encrypted and cannot be read.
With malware and stuff like that, you never now what kind of stuff might be on your devices that could get you in trouble, which is why I wipe and reinstall before crossing internetional borders.
It was the policy when I had my online radio station, and my policy in personal travel.
Re: Re: Re:8
So now you’re backing yourself by doubling down, which means you’re a lying troll. Good luck in prison!
Re: Re: Re:5
Get caught for what? It’s not normally illegal to bring blank phones/computers across a border, and whether it’s “suspicious” is irrelevant because they’re not going to casually notice it’s blank. If they start plugging wires into your devices, they were already suspicious of you, and any extra data included to avoid looking suspicious is unlikely to help you.
The phone-makers should, however, include a standard “wipe and restore from cloud” option for border-crossers. Making it a normal thing to do would help push back against any “destruction of evidence” claims.
Re: Re: Re:6
Making it a normal thing to do would help push back against any “destruction of evidence” claims.
And also make that stash of child porn you’re clearly trying to hide fully recoverable. You’re right, that would be a good thing.
Re: Re: Re:
Remember too, these “well to do” women also have the money to hire hackers to break into the right computers and erase the warrants from their arrests, and all case files relating to the proseution.
If you have money, you can do anything.
As the old saying goes, money talks, BS walks.
Re: Re: Re:2
BS like yours, you mean? Remember, in this situation, BS isn’t the TLD for the Bahamas.
Re: Re: Re:
Bitcoin, if done right, cannot be traced to you.
This is wby I expect abortion clinics to start using bitcoin.
Also, you can avoid being traced by sitting in one resturant and using a WiFi in another.
If you have one of these 10 watt linear amplified USB adapters you can do that.
Before Coco’s closed years ago, I could eat my meal there and connect to the WiFi at another restaurant about 1000 feet away.
while I did not do anything illegal, I could have, if I had wanted to, and never be caught.
I bought that 10 watt USB adapter from a seller in China. That device is fully legal in the USA, or Customs would have never allowed it to be shipped to the United States.
This 10 watt device lets me stay at one campground, and connect to a for pay Wifi 6 miles away in the nearest town.
There is zero cellular at that campground, but the local cable companyh there, just like COmcast, Cox, and a few others, turn their customers’ cable modems into for-pay Wifi, and that let me get Internet on my laptop from 6 miles away.
And, no, I was not breaking any laws using that 10 watt USB Wifi adapter.
Re: Re: Re:2
Guess what else can’t be traced, whether it’s “done right” or not, shit for brains? Cash. Now fuck off, troll.
Re: Re: Re:3
Bills have serial numbers (I don’t believe US coins do, but mints are working on laser-etching technology that could be used for it). Would you be terribly surprised if someone leaked information about a secret government program that’s been tracking all of them for the last 20 years? Still, suggesting people use cash is better than suggesting they use Bitcoin, as the latter is very difficult to use “correctly”. By the time a pregnant person builds a mining rig and wins a block—the only way to get truly anonymous Bitcoin—they probably won’t be pregnant anymore.
Re:
One thing see as a possibility now is Congress ending the ban on travel to Cuba.
Because abortion is legal in Cuba, The “well to do” women, as Sen. Warren puts it, could fly down to Havana to get an abortion if Congress lifts the ban on travel to Cuba.
Havana is less than 1 hour’s flying time from Miami.
The rich and well do do women will be able to do whatever they want.
Re: Re:
You know what, fool? You’re getting as boring as Phillip. Now fuck off while the real discussion goes on.
Re:
I mean its not like they are using rap lyrics to imply people are gangsters because they said something in a song… oh wait, they are.
Any woman could also put their phone in insane cop proof mode where LEOs cannot get at the contents.
You encrypt with a good password, and then use “booby trap” mode where if they try and brute force crack the phone, it will wipe itself and reset after too many failed password attempts.
You cannot be prosecuted in any of the 50 states for using booby trap mode. If they make too many failed password attempts and your phone wipes itself and resets, there is no law you can be prosecuted under.
Re:
You cannot be prosecuted in any of the 50 states for using booby trap mode.
Yes you can. Doing anything to inhibit a lawful police investigation is considered obstruction of justice and is a crime, including not giving the police your password so your phone wipes itself. Dickhead.
Re: Re:
Booby trap.mode has been replaced by something even better.
In order for data transfer now you have to unlock your phone and give permission for your phone to connect to a computer to access the data on your phone
Without your password they cannot even transfer evrypted days.
You have a fifth amendment right to not give out your password.
With the latest Android update on my phone,booby trap mode is now obsolete
Re: Re: Re:
You have a fifth amendment right to not give out your password.
Only in the States.
Re: Re: Re:2
Only in some states.
Re: Re: Re:3
Okay, tell me: which states don’t recognize the Bill of Rights?
Re: Re: Re:4
From a quick cursoru search of previous coverage:
Third Federal Circuit:
https://www.techdirt.com/2016/04/28/so-much-fifth-amendment-man-jailed-seven-months-not-turning-over-password/
New Jersey:
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/27/nj-appeals-court-lower-court-mixed-up-4th-and-5th-amendment-and-either-way-phone-passcodes-can-be-compelled/
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/08/20/new-jersey-supreme-court-says-forgone-conclusion-trumps-fifth-amendment-crooked-cop-case/
Illinois:
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/23/another-illinois-appeals-court-handles-compelled-password-production-says-theres-no-fifth-amendment-issue-here/
https://www.techdirt.com/2019/12/06/another-federal-court-says-compelled-production-fingerprints-to-unlock-phone-doesnt-violate-constitution/
Re: Re: Re:5
You do know that the majority of a group can be spoken about as though it’s the entirety of the group when something is true of that majority, right? Tell me, did you know that three from 50 leaves 47?
Re: Re: Re:6
Congratulations, while pretending you understand numbers, you counted the Third Federal Circuit as one state. Nice own-goal there, kiddo.
Re: Re: Re:7
I Googled the Third Circuit and only Massachussetts was mentioned. You clearly didn’t. Nice own goal there, toddler.
Re: Re: Re:8
What google results actually say:
So not only can you not even count to three, Massachusetts is also under the First circuit, dropped baby.
Re: Re: Re:9
Wow, nice projection right at the end there.
Another way you can keep your browsing from ever being traced or purchased is to use the Tor Browser, to make your surfing invisible and untraceable.
They can’t prosecute what they can’t trace
Also, abortion clinics can start using .onion addresses where users cannot be traced.
Re:
One of the top search results for “abortion clinic” is abortionclinics.com, which is actively blacklisting Tor users. Is that a honeypot, or a clueless legitimate site? I’ll bet there are at least a few real clinics that ban anonymous browsing.
Re: Re:
You can use an under the radar VPN not in any blacklists.
When I ran my online radio station, I also ran a VPN service on the side which was totally under the radar because I ran that one from my home internet connection which allowed servers.
Since it was not in any data center (where VPNs usually are), I slipped under the radar
I did that so that people could bypass workplace firewalls and tune in to my online radio station.
My server also became popular for other things too. During “Cyber Monday”, my server got a workout as people from offices all over the place used my VPN to do Cyber Monday shopping and the boss would never know what was happening, only that they were connecting to an encrypted connection at my residence.
Also, during March Madness, my server got a workout as people came through there to get the all the games from work and the boss would never know what they were up to.
I would see students in high schools going to social media through my VPN and school administrators would never know.
And that also included one hit music site that was run by iHeart. I would see connections coming from schools going to Hit Nation, an all hits all the time channel.
Those students were not committing any crime using my VPN.
Bypassing filtering and blocking does not break the law anywhere in Australia, Canada, the USA, or the UK. In other countries it might, but there are currently no laws in those countries that make bypassing the company or school firewall a criminal offence.
I used Bitcoin because I had the policy of I did not know and did not want to know which subscribed to my under the radar VPN.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I suppose I could. But I don’t expect to need an abortion, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that of people seeking them. Nor is it reasonable for sites providing medical advice to even half-heartedly attempt to ban anonymous browsing.
(The excuse for this is usually “spam”, which might make sense if I were trying to post something. But we’re talking about a fully cacheable HTTP GET request in a situation where privacy matters quite a lot.)
Re: Re: Re:2
I should be noted too that using a VPN to bypasas restrictions like that does not break any laws.
I have both pirate streaming services and legit streaming services, and my local McDonald’s now blocks all streaming services.
DirecTV streaming(;egit) and StremLive(pirate) are now blocked by their new filtering system.
Using a VPN I subscibe to to access these services when I am there does not break either federal law or California state laws.
Bypassing filtering, whether at a McDonald’s, or from work or school is not a criminal offence in any of the 50 states, or at the federal level.
IN short, using VPN to bypass filtering restrictions does not break any laws.
Re: Re: Re:3
Fuck. Off. Troll.
Re: Re: Re:3
Fuck off, lying troll.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.
John 3:20
Re:
Whoosh
Re:
… said the person posting anonymously.
Re:
That fiction contrasts with the reality that it’s evil that’s using the light to burn the innocent here.