Did you read one of my sentences backward?? My main point against your friends over the top off the grid nonsense was that abortion laws target abortion providers, not abortion seekers. Providers are the doctors (and sometimes others), seekers are the pregnant women.

No, you are citing extreme cases. Extreme cases are not typical cases. You seem to be getting your entire view of the US from the extreme right. Yes, the extreme right is important because they are making strides toward taking over but they have not yet taken over.

My point was that if she consults her own doctor about the pregnancy she wished to terminate, and her State authorities later find out about this, they WILL get her medical records from him, and use them against both her and her doctor.

Not consulting her own doctor does NOT MEAN she should not seek medical advice. My advice would be to get such advice from an out-of-state doctor, where her State authorities have no legal access - where if they attempt to seek those medical records, they will get told to go pound sand! If she must go to her own doctor, she should insist that any consultation is off the record with NO paperwork or other documentation.

It seems you are not taking the risk of prosecution at all seriously; this despite that clear evidence I have demonstrated that it is already happening. Along with my medical professional friend in West Virginia, I advocate that women seeking an abortion MUST take that risk seriously. Even though a woman or a doctor could be later found not guilty, they would have have been forced to endure the nightmare of being arrested, charged and put through the court system, with the possibility of the doctor losing his licence to practise, or being fired, and both having to pay tens of thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to defend themselves against an action that could have been avoided by taking a few simple security precautions.

Even Blind Freddy could see the obviousness of this!

:rolleyes:

Oh, I'm sure that the victims of those "extreme cases" will be taking great comfort in the fact that their cases are "extreme"... as they sit in their jail cells for a months waiting for their cases to come to court, and see their resources drained on lawyers and court costs.

Bwahahaha. How adorable. My sources are...

The Kaiser Family Foundation
The Guardian
The "Free Press" advocacy group
The Washington Post
National Public Radio (NPR)
The American Civil Liberties Union
The Boston Globe
The Atlantic
The Pew Charitable Trusts

You think these sources are on the extreme right of the political spectrum? Really?

This is just laughable. Simply ignore the warnings about what is going to happen, huh? That's your advice? Stick your head in the sand and pretend/pray that it will all go away?

I guess taking preemptive steps to keep the State from knowing things about you doesn't even occur to you. You do realize that when the laws change, the State can still go back later and gather evidence to prosecute you? Oh, they probably will not succeed with such a prosecution, but they can still make life difficult for you and make you have to defend yourself. Do not think for one moment that those on the right will not break the law and/or attempt illegal prosecutions of women who have had abortions.

These people are obsessed religious zealots, they WILL break the law to further their own agendas, and pretending that everything is all just hunky dory because the current laws will protect you is the absolute height of naivete!

But there is nothing to use those records for in most states where abortion is banned. In West Virginia which was the target of your friends pamphlet the law is written to explicitly exclude the seeker. That exclusion applies even in the unlikely case that she convinces a doctor to perform it in West Virginia. Only people performing abortions can be convicted under the W Va law. And there is no law preventing travel outside of W VA to get an abortion. Under W VA law there would be nothing in those records of interest as log as the doctor didn't do the abortion. He can know about the pregnancy and it is no problem for anyone.

What does this even mean? That some people are still able to get abortions without being arrested?

If governments and police authorities are pursuing cases against doctors, nurses, family members, pregnant women- it doesn't matter what % it's affecting now, if you don't oppose it it will be the norm rather than the exception!

"Statistically exceptional" doesn't mean dick when a woman is too afraid to even talk to her own doctor out of fear.

You're getting ugly. I certainly don't mean those extreme cases didn't happen or weren't extremely painful for the people in them. And I think you know that and are just making desperate arguments. I explicitly said those extreme cases are not typical and that is my point.

No, absolutely not. Sorry, I wasn't clear. I did not mean your sources were right wing or even mean that they were unreliable. What I mean is you are only seeing the extreme cases due to the right wing and not getting a picture of what is typical.

No, and again this is just you being desperate. I certainly am not saying we shouldn't be treating those cases as warnings against what the future might bring and I again I think you should know that as my words seem clear on that matter: That future is not current reality in most parts of the US.

We definitely should and need to be working against. We should not be living as if it is here now (again with the caveat of usual edge cases like TX).

No. That's pretty damn far from legal in the US. If you're positing a time when that has broken down then your current records won't matter because they wouldn't even need them as a pretext.

I'm one hundred percent opposed to those extreme cases. Why do you think I'm calling them extreme? Do you think I mean extremely good??? I mean they are extremely bad.

AND THIS IS MY POINT! Women should not be afraid to talk to their own doctors! Wasn't I completely clear that women should not be afraid to talk to their own doctors?

And the point was that the pamphlet cited earlier was written as if women should be afraid to talk to their own doctors. It explicitly said don't tell your own doctor.

That's the point of realizing that these cases are exceptional and not the norm.

You don't tell all women seeking out of state abortions to not talk to their doctor. Women who live in areas where their doctors or medical records could be used against them are rare now. People should not be planning as that case is typical. It is not.

"Don't worry, the police probably won't get involved" probably isn't as comforting to some women as you seem to think it is.

'K

For now!

For now!

For now!

For now!

For now!

For now!

It is really sad that I have to explain this to you again, especially as I consider you to be one of the better and more intelligent posters here (and that is genuine by the way).

"...when the laws change, the State can still go back later and gather evidence to prosecute you? Oh, they probably will not succeed with such a prosecution, but they can still make life difficult for you and make you have to defend yourself. Do not think for one moment that those on the right will not break the law and/or attempt illegal prosecutions of women who have had abortions."

If you think the current laws will protect a woman from this, then you are sadly mistaken. A religious zealot prosecutor in California managed to get a woman to plead "no contest" to a charge that does not even exist in law.....

https://calmatters.org/justice/crimi...-manslaughter/

...the Legislature added language to California’s murder statute: The killing of a fetus was punishable. But they added a condition: The murder statute didn’t apply if the act was “solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.”

Perez’s attorneys argue that her charges are therefore invalid because, under California law, a fetus cannot be the victim of a criminal act if the act is committed by the mother, or with her consent. They say the prosecutor erred in charging Perez, and the judge wrongfully allowed Perez to plead to something legally impossible. They contend the original attorney assigned to Perez failed her by allowing her to plead to a lesser charge, manslaughter of a fetus, that doesn’t exist in California law.



.... and the Judge jailed her for 11 years!!!! :jaw-dropp


Now if this horse-**** can happen in the bluest blue state of California, it can happen in any state in the US.

:thumbsup:

I'm arguing that the stuff you are citing is not typical and you cite that?

Your article says this:
Yeah, let's treat that like it's typical. And like that woman would have been helped by the advice in that pamphlet. That makes zero sense.

****-me, you are hard work!!! It is utterly irrelevant whether or not it is "typical", I don't give a fat rat's arse if it is "typical" or not.

Being burgled or being the victim of a home invasion is not "typical" but is it a good idea to lock your doors and have a security system?

Being involved in a fatal car accident is not typical , but is it a good idea to wear a seat belt?

Being involved in an airliner crash is not typical , but is it a good idea to listen to the safety briefing and make yourself familiar with the emergency exits?

It is a provable and undeniable fact that abortion seekers and providers HAVE been prosecuted - it DOES happen, and given that fact, it is not unreasonable for people in these circumstances to take precautions against it happening to them.

Sheez. Burglary and car accidents are far more common than the one off's you are citing. And locking your door and using a seat belt are harmless and fast. Not talking to your doctor and family when you need to due to unreasonable fears is harmful.

At this point, your responses are starting to seem almost deliberately obtuse.
One, you don't get to decide what is a "reasonable" or "unreasonable" fear when it comes to someone else's body, health, and freedom. Secondly, when you see a rising tide start to wash things out to sea, saying "don't worry, you're safe up here" may seem like whistling past the graveyard considering that it's other people that need to be afraid of the water.

Of course it's extremely harmful that someone should have to be afraid of confiding in their doctor- that's why you should fight any intrusion into this private relationship. Saying "it's not that bad yet" isn't that encouraging to people who might have no idea when "yet" is actually here.

... and desperate. Cornered maybe?

Indeed, and RecoveryingYuppy continues to misrepresent the part about not consulting your own doctor.

For the record;

"Do not consult your own doctor at all" ≠ "Do not consult a doctor"

"Do not consult your own doctor at all" ≠ "Do not trust your doctor"

RecoveringYuppy implies that my friend's advice means both of these things. It is simply untrue. She advises getting medical help out of state, where the doctor and his records, will be out of reach of the State government.

"travel out of state without telling anyone where you are going and make enquiries and arrangements personally and directly"

Indeed, there is a significant element of "ostrich behavior" in claiming this to be a justification not to take reasonable precautions.
.
.

That makes no sense. In the first place I'm not making any decisions for anyone, I'm pointing out that those decisions should be based on accurate facts and we should be spreading accurate facts. It also makes perfect sense to oppose restrictions that don't exist yet while simultaneously having an accurate understanding of exactly what those restrictions are and where they do and don't apply.

I'm not saying "it's not that bad yet". It's plenty bad. But it's totally stupid for anyone to plan for Texas level bad in their own life we they aren't actually facing Texas level bad in their own state. People should plan accurately for their own circumstances based on accurate information, not scare mongering information.

And how you get from that to me not opposing restrictions is just mind boggling.

I don't see where I've ever said or implied that. And I certainly don't think that your friends pamphlet is suggesting that the out of state abortion be carried out without consulting a doctor. My contention is that is bad advice to suggest you shouldn't talk to your own doctor in the vast majority of circumstances.

I only used the "trust" phrasing once and if you find that to be an important distinction for your friends pamphlet it's absolutely no problem for me to agree on that.

I think I'll just post some sane advice on how to plan for an out of state abortion.

An article based on Planned Parent Hood and I Need an Abortion sources:

https://www.self.com/story/travel-fo...considerations

Note that step 1 is consulting a doctor to help plan the travel. You need to know what kind of abortion is best for you before you can plan a trip. Note the actual sane warnings about using google. No mention of hiding your digital tracks. Actual sane advice: don't be confused by sham Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Paying in cash is not mentioned. Consulting insurance company is mentioned. They do warn that in the future payment records may be problematic (BTW their source for that is some, now missing, article on Politico, not PP or INA).

Here's the landing page of "I Need an Abortion":

https://www.ineedana.com

They've got a privacy section on that page. No warnings to use a VPN or obscure device. Actual warning is about how to hide your search on a shared PC. Note that make no big deal of that, it's entirely optional.

Here is the Planned Parenthood page for finding where clinics are. No warnings that you should be using an untraceable computer.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion-access?

If "Do not search online for sources or information using your own devices" is such good advice why don't these two sources say so right when you would need that advice?

Hmmmmm

https://www.ineedana.com/about

This site is built and maintained by A Team Tech

A Team Tech is not a professional advisor or licensed provider for the healthcare industry. The content on this site and, in general, any and all information available therein, is not a substitute for direct, personal, professional medical care and/or diagnosis, no doctor-patient relationship arises between you and A Team Technology or any of the professionals and clinics displayed in the site, and nothing on this site should be misconstrued to mean otherwise. You bear sole responsibility for your own health and clinic research and decisions. Due diligence on your part as a consumer is required prior to contacting any healthcare provider or professional. The listings and any information in this site are compiled independently from the health care organizations and entities mentioned thereon, have not been fully revised for validity or update, and they alone are not sufficient –nor are they intended to be–

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/06/how-...oe-v-wade.html

How online searches and texts can put you at risk in a post-Roe world, and how to protect yourself

Key Points

• Digital tools have made it easier to find reproductive health care information, but also created new legal risks for those who use them.
• Prosecutors have already used search and text histories as evidence against women who claimed to have lost their pregnancies in miscarriages.
• There are several ways consumers can better safeguard the information they share online.

In at least two high-profile cases in recent years, prosecutors have pointed to internet searches for abortion pills and digital messages between loved ones to illustrate the intent of women who were charged with harming babies they claimed to have miscarried.

Those cases show that even tools that are not directly related to reproductive health care, such as period-tracking apps, can become evidence in an abortion or pregnancy loss case.

It’s also important to know that law enforcement may try to get your information without accessing your devices. Prosecutors may seek court orders for companies whose services you use or loved ones you have communicated with to learn about your digital whereabouts if they become the subject of a legal case.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/24/roe-...p;par=sharebar

Roe v. Wade overturned: Here’s how tech companies and internet users can protect privacy
Key Points

• The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has raised questions about whether and how tech companies should protect data of users seeking abortions.
• Data privacy experts concerned about the court ruling’s implications say there are ways that both tech companies and their users can try to better protect their information in a post-Roe era.
• In the meantime, there are also steps consumers can take to minimize their data exposure.

Advocates for people who have sought abortions or those prosecuted after experiencing a pregnancy loss say they have already contended with privacy concerns in states with restrictive abortion statutes.

“We’ve already seen, but we anticipate, that tech companies will be issued subpoenas for people’s search histories and search information,” said Dana Sussman, deputy executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a nonprofit that provides legal defense for pregnant people.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...n-surveillance

Why some fear that big tech data could become a tool for abortion surveillance
With abortion now or soon to be illegal in over a dozen states and severely restricted in many more, Big Tech companies that vacuum up personal details of their users are facing new calls to limit that tracking and surveillance. One fear is that law enforcement or vigilantes could use those data troves against people seeking to terminate their pregnancies.

Technology companies have by and large tried to sidestep the issue of abortion where their users are concerned. They haven’t said how they might cooperate with law enforcement or government agencies trying to prosecute people seeking an abortion where it is illegal — or who are helping someone do so.

Unless all of your data is securely encrypted, there’s always a chance that someone, somewhere can access it. So abortion rights activists suggest that people in states where abortion is outlawed should limit the creation of such data in the first place.

For instance, they urge turning off phone location services — or just leaving your phone at home — when seeking reproductive health care. To be safe, they say, it’s good to read the privacy policies of any health apps in use.

If you really do believe this is not an issue that an abortion-seeker should be concerned about, then you truly have your head firmly buried in the sand!!
.
.

Jesus. You can trust Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is not some right wing site trying to deceive you. Tell people to just trust them. They will get you rational information on this subject if you need it.

There is rational concern and irrational concern. Planned Parenthood will get you to rational information if you actually need it.

FFS PP can actually point you at a reliable non-scaremongering website. Just look for it if you care. It's not anything like your dystopian world view suggests.

Christ on a ******* bike!!! There is just no getting through to you, is there?

Yes, Planned Parenthood is a good choice to get such medical advice - probably the best choice in fact... but that is not the issue under dicussion!!!

The issue is with the personal security advice my friend gives in her handout.

FACT: State law-enforcement can subpoena your devices to find your texts, your private messages, your internet search history and your phone records.

FACT: State law-enforcement can get your texts, your private messages, your internet search history and your phone records without you even knowing, by subpoenaing your service providers

FACT: State law-enforcement can get your personal private medical information information to use against you by subpoenaing your doctor.

This is not some imaginary piece of dystopian fiction, it is real. The danger of prosecution if you live in a state where abortion is banned is real. How do I know this? Because it has already happened - multiple times. There have been more than thirteen hundred cases in which women were arrested, detained or prosecuted in legal actions directly related to their pregnancies, and this includes abortions, stillbirths and miscarriages. Thirteen ******* hundred!!!! That is not a trivial number, and with the overturning of Roe v Wade, and the hardening of the laws in some of those redneck states in which fundy Christian Nationalists have great political influence, it is going to get worse - much, much worse.

Alito's recent statements in an interview raises suspicions that the leak was most probably an inside job and engineered to sabotage any dissent from among the jurists and not some huge "Leftist strategy." From what I gather Justice Roberts was not keen on the aboslute nature of the final decision.

I would kindly ask you to not call anti-abortionists "pro-life". That lying term gives them a legitimacy they haven't earned.

In "red" states women will, in the not too distant future, get 30 years in prison for miscarrying. That is, if doctors don't save their lives for fear of also being charged with murder.

The party of treason wants to turn the US into El Salvador when it comes to women.

I agree. I think "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are better. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion or anti-life.

Face to face I go for the term women killers, because all too often over, that's been the time when the anti-abortionists have been at their loudest.

OK

I only use it for familiarity's sake, since that is what the media call them, but yes, "pro-misogyny" would probably be a more apt description.

I prefer forced-birthers myself. Highlights what they actually want to do .. force women to give birth.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

PP is good at all of it! JFC they are not just medical advice. They have some of
the most expert legal advice there is on this subject.

If anyone is in actual need of an abortion reading this thread: Follow Planned Parenthood advice! Do not trust individual opinion on the internet.

I wonder if it would help any if large numbers of pro-choice people of all ages were to do searches for abortion advice and request advice and information from the organizations giving it (in an automated way, and with advance preparation, so it wouldn't become an inadvertent DDOS attack).

Seriously? No, that will not help.

Do not contribute to scare mongering. How many of the articles cited mention that the biggest problem is women being afraid to ask for help? Do not contribute to making women afraid to ask for help by any means necessary. There are far more cases that will be harmed than helped by being afraid to ask or thinking you need to delay to get to someone else's computer or whatever.

How would those woman in CA been helped by this "advice"? They wouldn't have been. What if they had asked for help at PP or Abortion Fund by any means necessary? They might have gotten help that would have stopped that prosecutor on his first prosecution.

Let me repeat this and clarify it a small bit. You can count on the advice of PP to be based on a sound legal understanding. I doubt they can provide a lawyer directly anywhere though, but they can point you in the right direction.

ETA: For example:

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/he...ter-3334-91040

While I certainly agree in principle, along with "forced birthers," I think most people who hold those opinions would hotly dispute the designation, and would likely dismiss any discussion that uses those terms as not applicable to them. Especially if one is unsure of the choir to which one is preaching, I think something like "so-called pro lifers" would address them better, casting their own term in doubt, and opening the door to their having to argue for it.

One should not forget, in all this current hoopla, that Planned Parenthood has a much broader mission than just fighting abortion bans. It also has been in the forefront of advocacy of birth control, and also has always been of service to people who desire to become pregnant as well.

There is something deeply, fundamentally, and bizarrely wrong with a movement to de-legitimize the core idea that parenthood should be a conscious decision.

The current right-wing war against PP resembles the smaller, (and I hope ineffectual) war here in Vermont against the upcoming Constitutional amendment for reproductive rights. The opponents have plastered the place with signs saying "Say NO to late term abortion," as if that one, small and rare consequence of a whole big and important and far-reaching right were all that it's about. Imagine how offended and upset they'd be if a campaign for second amendment rights were opposed by signs saying "Say no to school shootings."

Medical advice is irrelevant to the issue under discussion!
Legal advice is irrelevant to the issue under discussion (its what you need AFTER you get into law trouble)

The issue here is about your digital footprint and protecting the security of your personal communications... the things you need to do proactively to keep your activities from being detected so that you do not get into legal trouble.

FACT: Every time you type something into a search engine and hit "enter" that search is entered into your search history on your device.

FACT: If you click on or tap one of the search results, and it takes you to a website, that website is entered into your browsing history. Every page you visit on that website is entered into your browsing history. If you make any word searches on that website using its own internal search facility, those searches and the results are entered into your browsing history. The search history and browsing history records where you were, and the date and time of your searches and browsing.

Both your search history and your browsing history can be accessed by law enforcement authorities when they subpoena your device. Whether you have been searching "how to make a bomb" or "latest cat videos" or "poisons that leave no trace" its all there in your search and browsing histories ready for law-enforcement to use against you in the event that you are suspected of wrongdoing. Searching "where can I get an abortion" is no different.

This information is nigh on impossible to remove from your device. Simply deleting your search and browsing histories will not be enough. For a phone you would need a complete reset, maybe even a new sim card and any installed microSD card should definitely be removed and destroyed. For a computer, you would need to carry out a low-level format of the HDD/SSD and reinstall of the operating system.... but all this work would be to no avail, because...

FACT: If you are using a search engine such as Google or Bing, and are signed in, then every time you type something into a search engine and hit "enter", like your device, that search is entered into your search history, only this time, its in your Google account, and unlike your device, there is no way to delete that at all. Its there forever

FACT: If you click on or tap one of the search results, and it takes you to a website, then like your device, that website is entered into your browsing history only this time, its on your ISP. Like your device, every page you visit on that website is recorded by your ISP. Like your device, that search history and browsing history records where you were, and the date and time of your searches and browsing. Unlike your device, there is no way to access or delete this. Its there forever.

FACT: If you text message, Facebook message, Instagram message or use ANY other messaging app on your device or computer those messages can be accessed by law enforcement authorities, either by seizing your device with a warrant, or subpoenaing the relevant app provider.

All this information is there for law-enforcement authorities to get their grubby fingers on. Its up to the user to take actions to prevent or at least minimize the chance of, them finding this information and using against them.

I agree that Planned Parenthood are the best source of advice as regards seeking termination of a pregnancy, and a good source of advice for those who live in a State where abortion is banned, have already terminated a pregnancy and are now being investigated. They are NOT, repeat NOT a source of advice for internet and personal communications security. Now, by all means, anyone seeking an abortion or looking for information about medicational termination of a pregnancy should look to Planned Parenthood for advice, but if that abortion-seeker simply opens Google, types "Planned Parenthood", hits enter and navigates to their website, they are advertising what they are doing to anyone who can or will be able to access their internet history. It would be like a bank robber making sure they got seen on surveillance cameras while casing the bank, breaking in, and then signing their name in Sharpie on a counter-top before they left. By searching abortion information without taking any precautions to hide what they are doing, an abortion-seeker is telling law enforcement what they have been doing.... they are handing them the evidence they will use to charge and convict them.

Yeah, the problem the right has with Planned Parenthood is that they don't want abortion or contraception to be allowed. They believe parenthood should, be God's decision!

Yeah, they are. As I pointed out already, they provide a link to good reality based information that looks nothing like your friends pamphlet (ETA: And is written in a less scary tone)

Another ETA: I really don't get why you are so invested in that pamphlet. Planned Parenthood (and others actually) are perfectly safe to visit if you are seeking abortions. We shouldn't be discouraging people from going there or doing anything to slow them down. Follow their simple process and you will get all the information you need. That even includes getting a better version of how to hide your tracks along with good information about whether you really need it.

Provide this link as evidence? There is nothing like what you claim on their homepage (which if it exists at all, should be one of the first things you see).

Your claim, your burden. I am not doing your homework for you.

Because I believe it is good, well founded advice that I myself would give anyone who wants to keep their internet use private. It also comports with information given by actual, real and reliable experts in the specialist field of personal communications security, such as the Electronic Frontiers Foundation.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/0...bortion-access

"Those targeted by anti-abortion laws can, if they choose, take steps to better protect their privacy and security. Though there is no one-size-fits-all digital security solution, some likely risks are clear. One set of concerns involves law enforcement and state actors, who may have expensive and sophisticated surveillance technology at their disposal, as well as warrants and subpoenas. Because of this, using non-technical approaches in combination with technical ones may be more effective at protecting yourself. Private actors in states with "bounty laws" may also try to enlist a court's subpoena power (to seek information associated with your ISP address, for example, or other data that might be collected by the services you use). But it may still be easier to protect yourself from this “private surveillance” using technical approaches.

What I can't understand is why YOU are so invested in the idea that it is not necessary to protect your web privacy when you are trying to find information about how to do something that is a criminal offence in your State!!!.

So long as you take precautions not to leave a digital trail, then I agree.

FFS, you are STILL not getting this!!

NO-ONE, and I mean NO-ONE here (and that includes me) has discouraged, or is discouraging people from accessing the Planned Parenthood website!!! NO-ONE.

If this is what you are claiming I am doing, then . you . are . lying!

What I, and others have said, its that at the very least, abortion-seekers need to take precautions to ensure that there is a minimal, or no digital record of your visit. If an abortion-seeker does in fact succeed in having her pregnancy terminated, and later comes under suspicion of doing so, the State WILL seize their devices, WILL subpoena their internet history, WILL subpoena their medical records, and they WILL use all of that against them in court. This is a proven, irrefutable and undeniable fact - it has happened multiple times already.

Yeah, that's real good advice. :rolleyes: Access their website, unprotected, to find out how to protect your information while accessing their website. Does the phrase "Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" mean anything to you? :boggled:

As I said, they give you the link in the process. It is not on their home page and doesn't belong there because they have a reality based understanding of when it is needed.

https://digitaldefensefund.org/d

Poke around there and you can get everything you need for your situation, without the scare mongering. There are instructions there for all circumstances.