“We preserve account information in response to a request from law enforcement and will provide it, in accordance with applicable law and our terms, when we receive valid legal process,” said Andy Stone, Facebook’s policy communications director, in an emailed statement. “When we preserve data, we do so for a period of time, which can be extended at the request of law enforcement.”
Aiding New Mexico prosecutors in the case is Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection... Mary McCord, the institute’s executive director, said Facebook’s response is insufficient. Facebook should know that records related to organizations and people it deems dangerous under its “real-world harm” policies are, almost by definition, likely to be of interest to authorities, and should preserve them accordingly, McCord argued....
“I wouldn’t want to live in a world where everything that Facebook takes down, it just keeps in a big database,” said Dia Kayyali, associate director of advocacy at Mnemonic, a nonprofit that works on documenting human rights violations....
November 16, 2021
"Facebook took down a New Mexico militia group’s accounts. Prosecutors say it deleted key evidence."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
Facebook's censorship doesn't violate the First Amendment, because it's a private company, the Dems say.
Yet they treat it as an agent of the prosecutor, obliged to keep records on behalf of the government.
Think facebook will take this guys account down?
Think the DOJ will investigate him?
Quote from a school board meeting:
“For those who got an issue with this critical race theory, equity it’s something I fought for my children,” Austin said to meeting attendees. “How dare you come out from here and talk about the things that my daddy and my grandparents went through, the lynching, the oppression, Jim Crow. My kids are still being afflicted by this. How dare you come off in here and challenge me on critical race theory.”
“Look at the word racism, this is something deliberately done to people of African descent to shackle us down, this hate, fear-mongering ain’t gonna work no more,” Austin added. “It’s over with, we are not our ancestors. I got over 1,000 soldiers ready to go.”
Nothing is stopping prosecutors from archiving materials themselves.
Archiving everything forever requires vast server farms that massively contribute to global warming.
Oops!
I'm not a fan of Facebook censorship or data gathering, but I'm failing to see a wrong in terms of law enforcement. There's no specific claim that data was destroyed, only a suggestion that blocking the group deleted key evidence. I don't know how that works unless the key evidence was being developed by authorities monitoring the militia's group activities via Facebook. Otherwise, I think Facebook is correct that it archives data and those archives can be handed over to authorities with a proper warrant.
As for the concerns of Facebook retaining data, hard drives are cheap. Recovering destroyed data is very expensive. And if you disagree, please note the hostess remains on Blogger to preserve all her correspondence.
I'm having trouble following the argument. It sounds like the prosecutors are upset that Facebook is making them comply with the law as it relates to searches. They think they should just get what they want when they want it ("I don't want to live in a world where I have to show just cause." Oh, boo effing hoo). And Facebook, by taking down things that violate their TOS, are making a legal determination that they are then responsible for in the event police get involved.
Is that really what they are saying?
At the risk of appearing too steeped in practicality and reality, who do these people think is going to pay for the interminable storage of all this digitized information, on the remote chance that some bit of it might, might, again might, become interesting to law enforcement on some nonspecific time in the future? And that assumes that capacity continuers to meet demand.
https://www.statista.com/topics/3150/data-storage/
This is chilling. The article states that the shooter in the incident did not belong to the militia yet prosecutors are using the incident as a flimsy excuse to prosecute the militia. Is that the state of Americans’ civil rights today? Can we imagine the outcry if BLM and ANTIFA were prosecuted for fomenting violence in riots where lives were lost and $millions of property was destroyed through fires and other destructive attacks? Apparently the ACLU no longer advocates for civil liberties for those with political views different from their own.
I also wonder about the sanity of any non-state-approved organization using Facebook etc. However, they are probably tracked relentlessly by FBI informants fomenting violence under color of the militia anyway. Frightening days for civil rights in America.
Aiding New Mexico prosecutors in the case is Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection... Mary McCord, the institute’s executive director, said Facebook’s response is insufficient.
Geeez, I'd hate to see Mary McCord if she was against "Constitutional Advocacy and Protection."
So Facebook is an intelligence gathering agency for left wing Gestapos disguised as legitimate government agencies...
One more reason to JUST. GET. OFF. FACEBOOK.
Aiding New Mexico prosecutors in the case is Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection..
A constitutional advocacy group - with a powerful academic institution - is advocating for WIDER government latitude in prosecuting citizens?
Just as calls for censorship increasingly come from journalists - we are in unprecedented times.
Unless I'm missing something.
I'm sorry, but as much as I detest FB, the government in this case can go fuck itself.
So now, common carriers are supposed to be able to read law enforcement's corporate mind and just somehow know what to preserve? Law enforcement has all sorts of tools & agreements with these vendors for preserving data relevant to an investigation. Make use of them, in a timely fashion.
I swear, it just seems like we are governed by lazy, incompetents & malicious oafs.
The bigger concern is not that Facebook didn't save the info and not that Facebook deleted the post. It is that prosecutors want to prevent the militia group from public protests because someone was shot by someone who is not a member of the militia group.
Also, when a group goes to illegally tear down a public statue and another group goes to prevent it, why is it only the second group that is "fomenting violence?"
The same Mary McCord who was neck-deep in the illegal efforts to spy on the Trump campaign? I guess people with absolutely no sense of shame will always worm their way back into acceptable society. Just don't expect such people to have changed their basic nature, and take that into account every time they open their lying mouths.
Can one imagine, for example, the ACLU advocating for the Ma Bell to record and keep records of citizens in the 1970s? Ms. McCord's institute needs to change its fucking name to the NSA or FBI.
@Robert Marshall
Perfect point
If you're a government prosecutor making a case against a person or group, you investigate them before bringing charges.
While you and investigating, how about just hitting the 'Save' button, or take screen captures, or whatever other incredibly easy thing that is available.
If you're relying on a third party, you're not very good at your job...
Zuckerberg and his minions at Facebook / Meta are damned if they do and damned if they don’t when it comes to this. As Bill and Ted would say - EXCELLENT!!! Couldn’t have happened to a better self-indulged group of people.
What ever happened to the quaint notion of getting a warrant based on probable cause? Isn't that somewhere in the thing, you know, the thing?
Wouldn't the State or Feds need a warrant to freeze that data?
The prosecutor is not trying to retrieve the content of posts on Facebook by members of the militia.
He wants identities. He wants names and addresses and phone numbers of the people who posted on Facebook under the various county level accounts created by militia members.
He wants to know who they are, where they live, and who they talk to.
See Item 8 of Exhibit 13 on beginning of page 50 of the link below.
Supoena
He wants identities. He wants names and addresses and phone numbers of the people who posted on Facebook under the various county level accounts created by militia members.
He wants to know who they are, where they live, and who they talk to.
This is why in the recent explosion of 2 factor authentication they always require your mobile number. It makes the drone striles easier…
Howard: "Wouldn't the State or Feds need a warrant to freeze that data?"
LOL
That's adorable.
Aiding New Mexico prosecutors in the case is Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.
For which constitution does that Georgetown institution provide advocacy and protection? The Third Reich by the look of things. Perhaps Oceania.
Criminalizing our militias is one of the socialist milestones on the road to dismantling the republic created by the real Constitution.
Once it is out of the public view, how can we trust that Facebook has not altered the data? Spez can't be the only person in the social media tech industry who is tempted to do stealth edits.
Heh. This is like forcing BackPage (remember that?) to close, and eliminating adult ads from Craigslist. The LEOs were using information on their postings to track down child trafficker's, but NAAHH. Can't have that out there!
Tough shit, prosecutors. Should've archived it if you were building a case, instead of relying on a private company to do your job for you.
You have to wear a mask and take the jabs if you want to be in the well regulated militia, Q
As Robert Marshall suggests, the prosecutors are asking FB to become agents of the state. The "Constitutional advocacy" group supports the idea because the target (this time) is a group they don't like. Apparently the term "unintended consequences" doesn't exist in their vocabulary.
As to Howard's question about warrants, in a sane world of course they would need them. The various phone companies (defined as common carriers) usually require warrants from law enforcement before handing over phone records. FB can make a similar case for requiring warrants. Of course since the group being investigated is one disfavored by the state, the Constitution doesn't really apply.
Post a Comment