What freaking lies? Here are my three main points:

Here are direct quotes from your pamphlet:

Those are quotes.
Who in the world said they won't?????? In fact I supplied the map showing where the laws might spread in the future in the post where I called out your major mistake about Virginia vs West Virginia.

While I do think many of the precautions suggested here are excessive and overcautious when it comes to actual results at present, I think we have to remember that these days it seems whenever someone suggests "nobody could be that [stupid/clueless/wrong/evil/etc.] the next thing to appear is a disproof. The barrel has no bottom.

And I think also that though many of the laws and suggested laws we're seeing will not hold up to constitutional review or the test of time, and though many civil sidesteppings of the law will ultimately fail, that will not stop governments and individuals from the intentional filing of spurious arrests and lawsuits, simply to bring about expensive, humiliating nuisance. You don't need a verdict to bankrupt someone or lose them their job, and in a situation that lasts no more than nine months, a delay gets the job done.

I certainly hope much of the alarmism and caution here is misplaced and unnecessary, but we also have to remember how quickly things can change. The progress of rights is slow and evolutionary, but the progress of denial is instantaneous.

The "Do Not Track" is a polite request, not a demand that has any legal force. Trustworthy web sites will honor the "Do Not Track" request. The bad guys will ignore it.

In my opinion, a lot of it is actually good advice, although some of it is a bit over the top.

1. Depends on the state. In some states, talking to your own doctor can get your own doctor in trouble if he/she is brave enough to give you good advice. Some doctors may be so intimidated by their impression of their state's laws (whether those impressions are accurate or no) that they give useless or even harmful advice.
2. If you don't want your state's busybodies and/or law enforcement to know where you're going, not telling anyone where you're going is a good idea.
3. See point 2. If you can get where you want to go quickly enough without flying, as is true in most states, then you leave less of a trail if you don't fly, don't use credit cards for gas or anything else, and avoid toll roads that capture license plate numbers. If you must fly or use credit cards or toll roads, it's good to have a plausible excuse for the trip.

I agree with bruto's assessment of the unfortunate and rapidly shifting situation.

Denial of rights is also pretty normal in the forms of government that multiple forces behind the GOP are pushing for. Dominionism is pushing for theocracy, for example. The Libertarian billionaires are pushing for a heck of a lot of ugh. Authoritarians are pushing for a state that will happily take "everyone else's" rights away and leave them on top of what remains. Much more could be said, but there's no point in belaboring things further.

It would be great if the caution being advised ends up being unnecessary. Sadly, there's no hint of a real guarantee of that in the present political climate, given the forces at work. We're in far more danger today than we were even a decade ago. "It can't happen here" isn't much of a comfort for those who are rationally seeing the actual warning signs in action.

Or perhaps not 'foolish' but only unaware of how searches can be traced or not thinking clearly due to being extremely scared and stressed?

Like I said, you are mischaracterizing the points made.


What was actually said: "Do not tell anyone you are pregnant. Not neighbors, not friends, not even extended family. The fewer people who know, the better."

How you are mischaracterizing this: "Don't tell anyone where you are going or talk to anyone while traveling. Dangerous nonsense."

You are picking out individual words and phrases and removing them from their context, implying that the advice recommends an abortion-seeker should do everything alone and tell absolutely tell no one. This is clearly, and obviously NOT what was said. It said "...not neighbors, not friends, not even extended family" - I will give you the benefit of the doubt here - perhaps you really do not understand the difference between "immediate" and "extended" family.

Also, please explain exactly how a Mom and her pregnant daughter traveling without telling their neighbors, friends, uncles aunts and cousins is "dangerous nonsense"?


What was actually said: "Do not consult your own doctor at all. Even though he/she might be sympathetic and pro-abortion rights, legislatures in some states are already trying to pass laws that would allow authorities to subpoena/seize your medical records."

How you are mischaracterizing this: "Don't talk to your own doctor. Nonsense, you need him to know what your options are."

You are again cherry picking words and phrases out of context. There is nothing magical about your own doctor, and nothing special either, except that his records tell everything about you from a medical standpoint, and those records WILL be subpoenaed if you come under suspicion of having had an abortion. .In any case, not talking to your own doctor does not mean talking no doctor at all. If talking to a different doctor to your own is "nonsense" and "dangerous", then what about second opinions? They must be "nonsense" and "dangerous" too!



What was actually said: "Do not travel by air unless there is no other option. Paying with cash means you will have to show recent (less than 6 months old) government-issued photo ID. Paying for flights with cash could make you subject to additional screening. There are also passenger manifests and records, and you will most certainly be seen on airport surveillance cameras."

How you are mischaracterizing this: "Don't fly. Nonsense, get to your destination as quickly as you can."

Again, taken entirely out of context, especially the given reasons not to fly. You cannot fly anywhere inside the continent US without being tracked (seen on surveillance video and therefore, without Law Enforcement potentially finding out where you left from and where you went to).

Also, the last part about getting to your destination quicker by flying is wrong.

Lets say I live in Abilene, TX (I picked that as a random, central location at a city big enough to have an airport) and I decide to take my pregnant daughter to the nearest Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Albuquerque, NM.

If we are driving, it is a simple enough job to pack a few things, get into the car with a map, and drive to 701 San Mateo Drive, Albuquerque. Fill up with gas in Abilene (making sure to use cash on the route) and the drive time from Abilene TX to Albuquerque NM, 490 miles, is about 7½ hours (taking US-84 West)

If we are flying, there is no direct flight from Abilene to Albuquerque. The shortest flight is four hours with a 1¼ hour stop at DFW (Dallas-Fort Worth Airport).

On the face of it, flying seems to be about 3½ hours faster doesn't it. Except, or course, that if we decided to drive, we can leave immediately, and be there 7½ hours later. However, if we fly, have to.

1. Book the flight (if there are seats available). Lets be really generous and say there are seats available, and there is a flight that you can get on today...

2. For domestic flights in the USA, you have to be at the airport two hours prior to departure time. That makes your travel time now 6 hours if the plane departs on time, and if there are no delays at either Abilene Regional Airport or DFW.

3. You have to drive to the airport and find parking, or take a taxi or airport shuttle to Abilene Regional Airport. Depending where you live in the area of Abilene, this could add anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes to your travel time. If we average that, your travel time is now 6½ hours.

4. When you get to Sheraton Albuquerque Airport, you have to debark, and wait for baggage claim. About another 30 minutes. We are up to 7 hours travel time.

5. When you have claimed your baggage, you then have to take a taxi or airport shuttle to the Planned Parenthood Clinic in Fair West via Girard, Gibson and San Mateo Blvds - that is a 10 - 20 minute drive (traffic dependent).

So, your travel time was about 7¼ hours... you've gained 15 minutes by flying...

IF there were seats on the next available flight!
IF there was even an available flight at all at the time you decided to leave!
IF the flights and connections all depart on time!
IF everything goes perfectly , and there is no delay with the airport shuttle, baggage claims etc

And a whole lot of unnecessary hassle. Furthermore, and more importantly, you have exposed where you have been.

1. If you used a credit card or any form of electronic funds to pay for the flight and the taxi or shuttle, then using them has left a digital transaction trail from your front door in Abilene to the Abortion Clinic on San Mateo Blvd in Albuquerque.

2. Even if you paid cash for the flight somehow (which you would have to do by going to a travel agent in advance to book your flight, that's more delay) you both had to reveal documented photographic identity, so your names have been entered into the flight manifest...that is the Law.

3. If you took your own mobile phones, they will have pinged off every cell tower from your house to the airport at least one tower at DFW, and every tower from the airport in Albuquerque to the abortion clinic.

4. You both will have been detected on the surveillance cameras at all three airports.

All of this information is available to Law Enforcement. You have effectively told on yourself

On the other hand, if you drive, and you tell only your immediate family where you are going, leave your own mobile phones at home, and take burners instead (and perhaps leaving another burner at home to communicate with family), you can travel there and back with impunity and state government cannot easily find out where you went. You have made yourself digitally invisible to Law Enforcement and investigators.

Thanks for consistently being a voice of reason around here.

I'm not going to address all that nonsense (refering to smartcooky of course, not Stacyhs who posted in the meantime) . Let me repeat the link to your post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3#post13926993

You link doesn't say she should travel with or even tell her mother. That's a spin you developed a couple pages ago.

Here's the only place mom is mentioned:
That doesn't say "tell mom".

Here's the actual quote about who should know?
Doesn't exactly say you should tell your immediate family only implies it by omission. Certainly never says or implies you should take anyone with you. And for crying out loud, even two people travelling alone, with no one knowing where they are going, and not carrying their normal phones is dangerous nonsense.

And remember, your primary audience for this was West Virginia where it's perfectly legal to do everything related to planning an out of state abortion.

Don't forget the camping gear because hotels in the US require ID. And make sure you get a stranger to supply an untraceable rental car because the hotel will note your tags, there will be security cameras at multiple places, and you might even run into automated license plate readers on the New Mexico side of this trip. Don't forget the tinfoil hat for the OnStar antenna on the car.

ETA and BTW: I live not far from the part of country smartcooky is talking about and have done this drive multiple times (not to that exact address of course). We have both Border Patrol and DEA (they use those license plate readers I mentioned) floating around. I'd be worried about getting the wrong kind of attention if it's extremely obvious I'm trying to go under the radar.

FAIL 1: If you don't give any indication of when or where you are traveling to then the investigators wonlt know where to start

FAIL 2: If Law Enforcement try to get a subpoenas for the records for several hundred hotels and motels in a few different states, they are going to run into a near insurmountable logistical problem.

FAIL 3: A Texas State Court subpoena is worthless in any other state. They will be told to ****-off in short order.

FAIL 4: There are plenty of hotels, motels, trailer parks and campgrounds that do not require ID. For my example, I can give you a list of two dozen in Albuquerque alone and even more in surrounding counties within a short driving distance.

FAIL 5: You may not even need to stay at all, as Planned Parenthood in most places take walk-ins. (Both of the ones in Albuquerque do, and do does the one in Santa Fe). The whole procedure takes less than half an hour, and they are handled on an "Outpatients" basis, meaning you can take your daughter in to have her abortion, and be on your way home in an hour - I thought you would have known this about Planned Parenthood, since y'all claim to to know so much about what they do. :boggled:

FAIL 6: Even if you do have to stay, say overnight, Planned Parenthood has agreements with local hotels nearby. They will book you under their name, not yours, so that you can stay there anonymously. I thought you would have known this about Planned Parenthood too. :confused:

FAIL 1: No need for a rental, just use your own car. Why do I say this? Because again if Law Enforcement try to get subpoenas for traffic cameras from all the roads leading in and out of several different states, when they have no idea where you went or when, they're in that insurmountable logistical problem territory again.

FAIL 2: Again, a Texas State Court subpoena for traffic cams is worthless in any other state. Again they will be told to ****-off in short order.

FAIL 3: Traffic cams and licence plate recorders are easy to avoid. They are well documented.

FAIL 4: Then don't park in the Hotel/Motel car park.

Don't forget to the goggles and snorkel... burying your head in the sand for long periods of time will result in sand getting into your eyes, nose and mouth... and we wouldn't want that...

In any case, to address this part of all you ridiculous replies...

FAIL: Even assuming you have OnStar installed, its easy enough to unplug (I can explain how if you wish - it only takes a couple of minutes to do)

Adding to smartcooky's most reasonable response, here is a less reasonable response.

It might not be a bad idea to ask the person responsible for the other half of the chromosomes to drive his car and use his credit card(s).

Although there's a trend toward criminalizing doctors and non-profits, can you even imagine any prosecution of those who contribute sperm?

You only think its nonsense because you cannot (or will not) understand it, and because it does not fit your head in the sand/blinkered worldview

....aaand, that is another lie. Its in the ORIGINAL link YOU keep posting.

"Here is the text of that pamphlet which gives advice, and outlines some necessary precautions to any young girl and/or her parents who are, or would be, seeking to travel out of state either for abortion options or looking to obtain a medication abortion."

"BE DECISIVE
If you find you are pregnant, or if you are a mom and your daughter tell you she is pregnant, do not procrastinate."

When you post that link and lie about what is in it, people can go back and check to see that you are lying. You do realize this, right?

Now you're really getting desperate. Why would she talk about not telling "extended family" if she meant to include "immediate family" in that statement? You do know the difference, right?

More ostrich behavior!

For how long? There is no guarantee things will remain that way!

Again, you are ignoring context. It is abundantly clear that my friend provides these pamphlets to people she has already talked to about seeking and abortion. It even says that in the ORIGINAL link YOU keep posting...

"She sent me the text of a home-printed pamphlet she (covertly) gives out to people who ask her about abortion"

Jesus H Tapdancing Christ, you really are invested in the idea that anyone offering advice that YOU don't personally agree with is automatically giving "bad advice", and you appear to be prepared to lie, misrepresent, mischaracterize and cherry pick any detail in an effort to pretzel twist it to fit what you want.

You've got a few off-topic misunderstandings about things in the US there. For the moment just think about how a few of things you just said affect what you said a few posts up about "All of this information is available to Law Enforcement. You have effectively told on yourself"

Sure. Get there any way you want. it's legal.

BTW SB 8 in Texas is actually written such that it is legal to help a person with an out of state abortion but it's probably not a good idea to test that yet given the nature of it being enforced by private individuals.

ACLU of Texas says so:

https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-your-...abortion-texas

But you guys probably won't trust the ACLU because they flagrantly tell people to click on links and dial hotlines without using special VPNs or burner phones.

Here is a Washington post article that says so too (this is post SB 8, pre Dobs).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-abortion-law/

One point of interest relevant to this thread is that there are few points where they point out that misunderstandings of the law are causing some clinic workers to stop making referrals that are legal and being made by other clinics. BTW this article says that some abortion funds in Texas were still operating at that time and providing funds for out of state abortions at the time. I think Dobbs has now changed that due to the other Texas trigger law but that's still informative. (ETA Important note about that, while Texas abortion funds assess the new law, they point out that are other funds out of state that might be able to help).

Bull-******

There is a HUGE difference between leaving a trail showing exactly where you have been, exactly how you got there, and exactly when you went there - a trail that can easily be discovered with a mere subpoena to your ISP and MPP... and NOT leaving a trail at all, which will require Law Enforcement to undertake a wide-ranging investigation in multiple States - an investigation in which they have no starting point and no starting time or date.

The trail concludes with them finding you did something entirely legal.

Can you explain to me why the ACLU of Texas is telling minors under 18 to dial an abortion hotline without warning them about all the dangers you are citing?

Your are a random person on the internet. I'm following the lead and advice and telling others to follow the lead and advice of Planned Parenthood, Abortion Finder, the ACLU of Texas, National Abortion Fund, and the Digital Defense Fund.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...gital-privacy/

For people seeking abortions, digital privacy is suddenly critical
Internet searches, visits to clinics and period-tracking apps leave digital trails

When someone gets an abortion, they may decide not to share information with friends and family members. But chances are their smartphone knows.

The Supreme Court decision to effectively overturn the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade turns years of warnings about digital surveillance into a pressing reality in many states. Suddenly, Google searches, location information, period-tracking apps and other data could be used as evidence of a crime.

There is precedent for it, and privacy advocates say data collection could become a major liability for people seeking abortions in secret. For many women, the ruling puts Americans’ lack of digital privacy in sharp relief: How can people protect information about their reproductive health when popular apps and websites collect and share clues about it thousands of times a day?

“It is absolutely something to be concerned about — and something to learn about, hopefully before being in a crisis mode, where learning on the fly might be more difficult,” said Cynthia Conti-Cook, a technology fellow at the Ford Foundation.

Privacy advocates responded to the ruling by calling on tech companies to delete information related to reproductive health, or just collect less of it to start with. But that data has value for companies — much of our digital economy is built on companies tracking consumers to figure out how to sell to them. The data may change hands several times or seep into a broader marketplace run by data sellers. Such brokers can amass huge collections of information.

That data is an easy target for subpoenas, or court orders, and many tech companies do not give straight answers about what information they would be willing to hand over. Google, for one, reports that it received more than 40,000 subpoenas and search warrants in the United States in the first half of 2021.

Police and private citizens alike could buy data and use it to investigate suspected abortions. Phone location information has been used by activist groups to target ads at people in abortion clinics to try to dissuade them.

But just listen to RecoveringYuppy.. He will tell you there is absolutely nothing to worry about. If you help someone get an abortion, or if you get an abortion yourself, there is no chance of being caught and no chance that your online activities can be used as evidence against you. :rolleyes:

Take your arguments to Planned Parenthood, The ACLU, etc. When they incorporate your interpretation of all this I will agree.

For now. Redneck states are already legislating to make traveling out of state for an abortion a criminal offence.

Because they are ignorant of personal cybersecurity? Why don't you ask them?

Planned Parenthood, Abortion Finder, the ACLU of Texas, National Abortion Fund are experts abortion provision BUT THEY ARE NOT experts on personal digital security.

The Digital Defense Fund are experts in cybersecurity, but as I have pointed out to you previously, what they actually advise is NOT what you claim they advise. Their recommendations are more consistent with what I have been advising.

You are a random person on the internet. I'm following the lead and advice and telling others to follow the lead and advice of actual experts in cybersecurity and protection of your personal digital footprint.

You ask them. I'm completely sure they are the experts on the ground.
OK. I'm willing to accept that they are the experts and I'm not. Do you now agree that people should just read their website and ignore your pamphlet?

As you already know, that pamphlet comes from a personal acquaintance who is a health professional. She has many years experience in the field of women's health care (among other things). She consulted with internet and digital privacy specialists in her area (it was actually one of those privacy experts who advocated "cash only" and "burner phones". She also consulted with a defense lawyer (a partner in his firm) not only to determine her own potential jeopardy, but that of anyone she helped.

So, no thonks, I'll will continue to listen to those actual experts and will follow and advocate their advice over that of some rando with his head buried in the sand, on some obscure internet forum

No, I do not know those things. Those are just unevidenced claims.

How do we know those experts even exist?

I said to accept the advice of Planned Parenthood, Abortion Fund, Digital Defense Fund, and the ACLU. I'll clarify even further. Accept their advice. If in the course of me endorsing them you think I contradicted them, trust them over me. Do you agree with that? Should we trust them or your imaginary friend?

Your unevidenced expert lead off with a claim that is completely contrary to reality. Their, actually your, first assertion was that Virginia criminalized the abortion seeker. Very wrong. Abortion is legal in Virginia. You later claimed that you meant West Virginia. Still wrong. Abortion seeker is not criminalized. And travelling out of state to get an abortion is legal.

That is wrong in every state of the union we know of in this thread. It's well evidenced that that claim is wrong in Texas, the most egregious state of the union. It's well evidenced that Louisiana, arguably more regressive than Texas, tried and failed to criminalize the abortion seeker.

And about travelling out of state to get an abortion: Multiple reliable citations that this is still legal everywhere. For god ******* sakes we even have Kavanaugh in the Dobbs decision itself asserting that barring interstate travel to seek an abortion would be unconstitutional. Your ******* imaginary friend is even wronger than Kavanaugh on this issue.

For the Kavanaugh thing:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...t-dobbs-world/

The fact that she is a medical professional was previously explained to you here...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2203

and you accepted that ut dictum


https://www.dropbox.com/s/n18379kgkh...sand.gif?raw=1

With regard to the highlighted, that may have been true back when encryption was not ubiquitous. Here's what a modern, encrypted request looks like:

User: clicks on https://plannedparenthood.org/abortion-access

Browser: DNS, can I get an IP address for plannedparenthood.org?

DNS (usually run by the ISP): Yes, try one of 104.16.106.168, 104.16.105.168, 104.16.104.168, 104.16.107.168, or 104.16.108.168. The ISP can log this query and the response. How long it keeps those logs is a question; a large ISP will do millions of these a day, so keeping logs for longer than a few days will take up resources. Having said that, some countries have laws in place mandating collection and retention.

Browser: connects to port 443 at one of the IP addresses and negotiates an encrypted session. At this stage, the only information passed in the clear is the request for plannedparenthood.org's certificate and the response. What is not included is the "/abortion-access" part of the request.

All communications from this point on are encrypted with strong encryption.

Browser (using an encrypted link): GET HTTP/1.1 /abortion-access

plannedparenthood.org server: returns web page

Even if the ISP is doing deep packet inspection on all the traffic and storing the entire set of HTTP conversations, they are all encrypted. Said encryption is not a simple substitution cipher as seen in some daily newspapers; it's very complex and mathematically shown to be robust against attempts to crack it. The NSA and CIA may have the ability to crack the conversation, but I suspect local and state police don't.

With respect to the ISP knowing what you have searched, these days it can't because all search engines use encryption. So what is searched for is unavailable. What can be seen, though, is:

• DNS request from IP address n.n.n.n for search engine site
• DNS requests from IP address n.n.n.n for medical and/or abortion service sites

Whether that would be acceptable evidence in a court of law is another question. A lawyer might be able to make a case for reasonable doubt.

Another option for legal investigators is the web server logs at the other end of the connection. How much data is collected by Planned Parenthood's web server, and (critically) how long it's retained, is not spelled out in their privacy policy. In theory law enforcement can subpoena any web hosting company for the web server logs to see if a computer at a certain IP address accessed the site on a certain date at a certain time. These logs include the individual pages at the site that were visited. If the site has a search feature, what was searched for may or may not be logged depending on how the search page was designed. The search results likely aren't logged: only the length in bytes of the resulting dataset is available. Additionally, if the site in question has a policy of erasing web server logs after a certain time, they may be unable to provide the information to law enforcement.

Another thought: it is possible for law enforcement to order an ISP to store all activity for a certain user, and hand that data over on request. But that's useful only in an ongoing investigation. If a woman has already had an abortion, such information would likely be of little use since all the internet work needed to get the abortion has already been done.

Very true. It's sad that so many people are hoodwinked into thinking the only way to search for something on the web is to use Google, and a significant number of those people have Google accounts. That makes it really easy for both Google and law enforcement to see what someone is searching for.

Private mode is no good, it logs what web pages you visit to your IP. At the very minimum you should be using a programme that routes your 4equests through a number of IPs befor accessing the site with possibly a good security vpn on top. And all this should be done on a device that a) you don't own and b) the owner doesn't have any of your personal details.

The reasoning is cautious because the forced-birthers are theocratic liars who have yet to meet a boundary they don't want to trample. It not being the law yet doesn't seem to bother them

[quote[Travelling out of state, without anyone else's help in planning, with no one knowing where you are going, without having talked to a doctor first is a horrible idea.[/quote]
Then it's a good job it doesn't say that. The link you keep providing, and not reading, mentions it's given to mothers as well. Your Doctors will be the first place they'll look for records so other clinics and advice lines are given. Throughout it emphasises that secrecy is paramount and the fewer people who know the better,

Not sure who the DDF are but for PP I'd hazard a guess that they have to be careful because of their funding model. They don't want to say "Don't trust the Law to protect you" while relying on increasingly idealogically led States lawmakers

I don't know why you have such an issue with it. Most of your points come from a poor reading or deliberate misreading of it coupled with a "It's not that bad!" scoffing attitude

DDF is Digital Defense Fund. It's the site that abortion providers give out for this kind of secrecy advice. It has advice specific to the actual situation in the real world and is written in a less scary manner. It's the advice given by experts and created by experts.

And read your example: According to the details it wouldn't have been helped by smartcooky's advice. It could have been helped by ignoring smartcooky's advice. That woman was caught when she wound up in the hospital after a self induced abortion. Getting proper medical advice sooner could have helped her stay out of the hospital and avoid being noticed at all.

And this is what I have been trying to get across but its just been a case of fingers in ears while yelling "la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you"

The fact that these laws are not yet in place makes absolutely no difference to the right wing misogynist, anti-abortion crowd. They will arrest a woman they suspect of seeking an abortion, or of helping someone to seek an abortion, even of it is not illegal to do so, and as you rightly point out, it has already happened.

In Nebraska a mother was arrested for helping her daughter get an abortion, it is was precisely one of the things the pamphlet warns against -using social media private messaging apps, that were used to investigate and charge her. Their devices were subpoenaed by law enforcement,

Yup, but this is ignored because it doesn't fit his narrative.

Correct. It they start advocating people to hide evidence of their felonies, their funding goes out the window.

Yup, both nails hit square on the head.

There have been a couple of cases out of West Virginia (not related to abortion) that show just how law enforcement there are prepared to go well outside the law to achieve their aims.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...nsure-and-fine

https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/202...-traffic-stop/

https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/202...wins-in-court/

My friend who made that pamphlet and lives in that state calls it "The Wild West Virginia", and for good reason.

You are still missing the point!

https://www.computerworld.com/articl...about-you.html

Of the 50 most popular websites in three areas, 86% of health and shopping sites and 90% of news sites do not encrypt. ISPs can see the site URLs and content on each page. “Many sites are small in data volume, but high in privacy sensitivity,” Upturn wrote. “They can paint a revealing picture of the user’s online and offline life, even within a short period of time.”

“Detailed analysis of DNS query information on a per-subscriber basis is not only technically feasible and cost-effective, but actually takes place in the field today,” Upturn wrote. If you don’t really grasp the problem, Upturn offered this example of what an ISP could determine about a person based on domains visited over a short period of time:

[2015/03/09 18:34:44] abortionfacts.com
[2015/03/09 18:35:23] plannedparenthood.org
[2015/03/09 18:42:29] dcabortionfund.org
[2015/03/09 19:02:12] maps.google.com

Now add metadata collected over a longer period of time by an ISP and it “paints a revealing picture about a subscriber’s habits and interests.”

Upturn cites numerous research studies that show how much monitoring an ISP can still pull off even if a subscriber’s Internet traffic is encrypted. Such “side channel” monitoring is a big hit in countries which censor the Internet.

While the Swire paper claims that “[w]ith encrypted content, ISPs cannot see detailed URLs and content even if they try,” Upturn technologists claim, “Web site fingerprinting is a well-known technique that allows an ISP to potentially identify the specific encrypted web page that a user is visiting.”

Even when users surf over HTTPS connections, researchers have been able to successfully infer “the medical condition of users of a personal health web site, and the annual family income and investment choices of users of a leading financial web site,” as well as “reconstruct portions of encrypted VoIP conversations.”

Any search warrant and/or subpoena to an ISP will simply demand any unencrypted data.

Even so, the ISP still has a record of every URL you have visited. When you do, for example, a Google search for "where can I get an abortion", the result is a page with this as its URL...

... and that URL will now be in my internet record at my ISP. Encrypted or not, the ISP can still provide that to law enforcement with a search warrant or subpoena.

That search URL is also in your browser history (and can be recovered even if you clear it) so if law enforcement seize your computers, tablets or other devices, they can find where you have been.
.
.

Private mode is good because it keeps that information from being recorded on the device you're using. Seizing that device is the easiest way for someone else (e.g. law enforcement) to examine your browsing history. If that history hasn't been retained on the device (because you've been browsing in private mode), it becomes much harder for others to discover your browsing history. Not impossible, because courts can approve a subpoena of your ISP or search engine provider or web sites you've visited, but that's much less convenient for them than examining your device.

You've got exactly the wrong take away from that case. That Nebraska case ought to be the poster child for why your advice is bad.

If they had prioritized getting proper medical and legal advice as quickly as possible and completely ignored covering their tracks they'd have been a lot better off. Get proper legal and medical advice first! Don't delay getting good advice. They were doing something positively dangerous. They absolutely positively needed more medical advice sooner.

And keep mind I've been talking entirely about people seeking legal out of state abortions. I agree that if you're doing something illegal you should cover your tracks. But for crying out loud, getting proper advice soon is the best way to avoid becoming dangerous and illegal in the first place.

ETA: https://www.courthousenews.com/horri...term-abortion/

Note that they were not detected by those facebook messages. Note further that experts think that being afraid of getting help sooner was a factor.

That last part seems odd, considering the article says

"Authorities arrested Burgess and her mother in June after investigators uncovered Facebook messages indicating the two discussed using medication to end the pregnancy. Abortion pills are usually used much earlier in pregnancy."

The article doesn't seem explicit in how the issue was first detected, but it seems that the decision to prosecute for abortion comes from those messages.

While it seems pretty obvious that in this case they acted very unwisely and utimately criminally, I think the issue of government search of records still exists. The particulars of this case aside, it remains true that the government can subpoena facebook records, and can use the evidence as grounds for prosecution.

This link is more explicit, police were tipped off:

https://journalstar.com/news/state-a...ed3001c71.html

Yeah, the issue exists but mostly for people who are actually doing something illegal. Prosecutors can't just subpoena willy nilly. Has anyone yet cited an example of a person being erroneously prosecuted for a legal out of state abortion?

Let's say that actually happens. If it happens to one in a thousand people is it worth all one thousand (and what do you think the actual number is?) of them obtaining burner phones, setting up VPNs, and not talking to a local doctor? Those delays and obstacles are going to stop more legal and safe abortions than those false prosecutions are.

ETA: Let me re=emphasize the "If" above. One in a thousand might actually be a high number.

Wrong. I have exactly the right takeaways from that case, and

Wrong. It is the poster child for exactly why the advice in the pamphlet is sound, and here's why....

In fact, their Facebook messages are exactly what resulted in the evidence against them. Until that point, they only had a tip off from a member of the public, but no supporting evidence. It was the Facebook messages that proved they were seeking abortion medication.

From your own link...

"Authorities arrested Burgess and her mother in June after investigators uncovered Facebook messages indicating the two discussed using medication to end the pregnancy. Abortion pills are usually used much earlier in pregnancy."

Remember what the pamphlet advice said?

"Do not use ANY social media apps, text apps or any apps that involve written messaging to communicate about the pregnancy. Instead, use the phone app to communicate verbally. This way, even if police seize your phones, they will only be able to see that you talked, but not what you said to each other. Even better, buy burners and use them for any communication about abortion and pregnancy".

Once again, your own link exposes your bull-****. They were, in fact, undone by using Facebook messenger.

If they had used only the phone app to "discuss using medication to end the pregnancy" the evidence law enforcement now has against them would not exist, they would not have been arrested, and this case would not even have arisen.

Correct. Remember what the pamphlet advice said.....

You have limited time between falling pregnant and showing clinical signs. Knowledge is power; the earlier you find out, the more time you have to weigh up your options....

If you find you are pregnant, or if you are a mom and your daughter tells you she is pregnant, do not procrastinate. Make your abortion decision early. You can always change your mind later right up the point where you walk into the clinic, but if you take too long making the decision, you could seriously curtail you options.[/hilite]

Also, there is this...

Court documents filed by prosecutors indicate Celeste was just over 23 weeks pregnant during a doctor’s visit on March 8, 2022, and had a due date of July 3.

Remember what other advice that pamphlet gave?

Do not consult your own doctor at all. Even though he/she might be sympathetic and pro-abortion rights, legislatures in some states are already trying to pass laws that would allow authorities to subpoena/seize your medical records.

Her own Doctor's medical records are being used against them... exactly what the pamphlet warns against!!

If they had had access to my friend's advice, and followed it, they...

1. Would have made their abortion decision much earlier.
2. Would not have consulted their own doctor, perhaps instead, consulted a different doctor.
3. Would not have used Facebook Messenger to communicate.

... then they would not now be facing charges for exercising the girl's right to bodily autonomy. All of this stuff is so blindingly obvious, it defies all reason and logic that anyone could fail to understand.

ETA: And as to your earlier bull-**** claim about only those who help with abortion being prosecuted, and that abortion seekers themselves will never be prosecuted for having an abortion...

https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2022/08...eged-abortion/

Celeste, who is now 18, is being charged as an adult with removing, concealing or abandoning a human body, which is a felony, and with concealing the death of another person and false reporting, which are misdemeanors.

.
.

Right. All women should stop talking to their doctors about getting legal abortions because of two people who did multiple stupid and illegal things.

While you don't have to tell your GP about an abortion, people recommend it:

https://www.abortionclinics.com/do-i...d-an-abortion/
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...ering-abortion

Again you have failed to address ANY of the points made in the post you have reponded to, all of which were on point and valid, choosing instead to parrot your inflexible dogma.
Quelle Surprise.

That article is from 2016, meaning it's 6 years old now. Encryption has become more widespread, especially due to initiatives like Let's Encrypt. That said, I don't know how many medical, health, shopping, and news sites aren't encrypted as of late 2022. It's rare for me to encounter a site that isn't encrypted these days. (ISF, I'm looking at you!)

This is very true, which means it's important for a woman in one of these medieval states, or someone assisting her, seeking information on abortions to do internet searching from outside their usual ISP. That may require a bit of hunting around to find an open WiFi access point. Here in my province, big providers like Shaw and MTS are setting up these points all over the place, and they require you to sign in to them using the account you have with them. If you're on MTS and are trying to connect to a Shaw access point, you may be out of luck. Some places, though, still have WiFi available that's not on Shaw or MTS.

It depends on how much unencrypted data they keep. It is unlikely an ISP saves every byte a customer has sent back and forth over the web. They probably can if so ordered by a court, but I really doubt they do that as a matter of course.


Sorry, that's incorrect. That's what you as the user sees. What the ISP sees is this:

• DNS request for www.google.com
• Connection to port 443 at one of Google's IP addresses. The rest of the URL is not transmitted at this stage; the only piece of information the ISP has is the fact there was a connection to an IP address and a port
• Negotiation for an encrypted session
• Encrypted session data. It's at this point the browser sends the information following "https://www.google.com/" in the URL.

I know this is the case, because I've traced sessions like this using tcpdump on Linux. You can do the same if you want on Windows using Wireshark.

Therefore, with encrypted sessions only the site visited is known. The rest of the conversation, including which pages were visited, is not in the clear.


True, but only if you searched without going into private mode first. Which, as stacyhs pointed out, would be an easy mistake to make if you're panicked.

Good reason to avoid information meant to panic you.

I stand correct on these couple of points where I have it wrong

However, I still maintain there are no guarantees... DuckDuckGo has been shown to have security compromises, and private browsing does not prevent your own device from giving you away should it be seized. The safest bet is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, not to do any searches using your own devices or on your own ISP. A cheap, wifi-enabled "burner" phone, purchased with cash, connected to an open public WiFi such as found in shopping malls, or a prepaid with mobile data is a simple, effective way to prevent anyone from knowing which websites you have been to. You just have to remember not to login to any websites that you are signed up for, so no checking your emails or Facebook messages, etc.