International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

smartcooky 31st October 2022 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13935113)
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.

Too late by then, they're already in your browsing history on both your device and your ISP

ETA: And that is a dead link (404). I expected it would be.

RecoveringYuppy 31st October 2022 02:05 PM

No, it's not too late. Let me get the correct link.

That's how you're discouraging go to Planned Parenthood or other good resources. It is not important to cover your browser history before going there. No one should waste time figuring that out before going there.

ETA: https://digitaldefensefund.org/ddf-a...privacy-poster
https://digitaldefensefund.org/ddf-g...ortion-privacy

smartcooky 31st October 2022 03:05 PM

I managed to get that link to work

https://digitaldefensefund.org/ddf-guides

... and guess what I found

Keep Your Abortion Private & Secure
We’re happy you’re here to learn more about digital security & abortion!


These are possible concerns you might have:

Seeing advertisements related to pregnancy/abortion

1. Seeing advertisements related to pregnancy/abortion

2. Tech companies like Facebook and Google storing information about your pregnancy/abortion
The problem: While browsing the internet and using our phones feels private, many companies actually watch what we do online and use our phones to track where we go. All of these companies — Google, Facebook, Amazon, your cell phone service provider, your internet provider, any app with access to your location data — keep records of what we do. These records are not only used for advertising, but can also be bought by governments and handed over to the police if the company gets a warrant.
Oh dear... this is what I have been trying to tell you.


3. That the person who pays your phone bill can see your texts

4. https://digitaldefensefund.org/ddf-g...history</span>

The problem: While browsing the internet and using our phones feels private, many companies actually watch what we do online and use our phones to track where we go. All of these companies — Google, Facebook, Amazon, your cell phone service provider, your internet provider, any app with access to your location data — keep records of what we do. These records are not only used for advertising, but can also be bought by governments and handed over to the police if the company gets a warrant.
Again, this is what I have been trying to tell you.


5. Your phone company keeps copies of your browsing history or texts about your abortion
The problem: When you use the internet, your internet service provider can keep records of the websites you visit. (However, thanks to encryption called HTTPS, they can’t see what you do on those websites.) When you send a text via SMS, your phone company stores copies of all those texts. These can be turned over if the phone company gets a warrant, or used for advertisement.
Once again, this is what I have been saying.


Also, I should point out that they have made a fundamental error here when they state "However, thanks to encryption called HTTPS, they can’t see what you do on those websites". This is misleading at best, outright wrong at worst. Firstly, every page on a website has its own unique URL, so the ISP (and indeed any law enforcement agency they pass the information to) can see what pages you have visited on the website. Secondly, SSL Certificates are not hacker-proof. The State could easily get the tools to see what you did on those websites.

I also note that ALL of the solutions and suggestions provided in the guides by this website, such as switching off location services, turning off Ad ID, Google Voice, Signal encryption etc, are technical solutions. The technical privacy solution that cannot be worked around and/or defeated and/or hacked has not yet been invented, at least, not unless you are the military or the government.

I will address a couple of them

• Turning off location services won't help. If you live in one state, and turn your location services off to travel to another state, and think you are safe from being tracked, you are mistaken. Every cell-tower between where you live and your destination, and anywhere you go, will record your presence when your phone pings the tower. Even if you turn it off while traveling, the moment you turn it on, it will ping the tower, and your location is revealed and recorded. There is no substitute for the non-technical solution - leave your smartphone at home - there is no way to defeat this.

• Signal Message Encryption can be defeated simply by seizing your smartphone and using your own app to read the decrypted messages. If you try to protect access to your device or app by using a password and refuse to give it up to law-enforcement, they can simply get a court order to direct you to do so, and if you still refuse, they will throw your arse in jail until you comply.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...use-encryption

and even SCOTUS won't help you

https://www.reuters.com/business/leg...re-2021-05-17/

• I can't speak for Firefox Focus as I have never used it, but as for using Duck Duck Go, if you thought that will save you, you thought wrong!

https://www.komando.com/security-pri...ng-you/839860/

Again, there is no substitute for using non-technical solutions

- Don't use your own smartphone for communications and internet
- Leave your smartphone at home when traveling interstate
- Use burner phones to communicate (they are cheap - ~US$25)

PS: I love it when a debate opponent posts a link they think supports their view, only it actually turns out to support mine. Awesome!

smartcooky 31st October 2022 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13935138)
That's how you're discouraging go to Planned Parenthood or other good resources. It is not important to cover your browser history before going there. No one should waste time figuring that out before going there.

I'm still wondering why you are so invested in pushing this falsehood!!

It is clear and obvious why you should first take steps to cover your digital tracks before you leave them. Even the websites YOU are pushing are telling you this :boggled:

RecoveringYuppy 31st October 2022 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13935171)
I managed to get that link to work

https://digitaldefensefund.org/ddf-guides

... and guess what I found

I know you found that there. I told you you would find it there. I told you they covered everything. Note the lack of panic or insistence though. It's "These are possible concerns you might have:" not "you have to do this first". I told you that everything your pamphlet recommends was there but without the scaremongering.

You can find out how to pay for an abortion anonymously there too. But nothing says everyone has to do it that way.

Gulliver Foyle 31st October 2022 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13934707)
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.

The term just annoys me is all. I don't think we should be giving them the dignity of a name they didn't earn.

RecoveringYuppy 31st October 2022 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13935173)
It is clear and obvious why you should first take steps to cover your digital tracks before you leave them. Even the websites YOU are pushing are telling you this :boggled:

Quote please?

Just yesterday you were explaining to me why the sites I was "pushing" didn't and wouldn't tell me that.

ETA: By the way, if you actually think those websites are saying the same thing you've been telling me then just have your friend pass those out rather than that pamphlet.

smartcooky 31st October 2022 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13935180)
Quote please?

No need to quote anything - its the line you've been pushing right from the get go.

The whole fact that you advocate going direct to abortion websites as a first port of call to get internet security information before actually implementing any internet security, necessarily implies that you do not think internet security is necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13935180)
ETA: By the way, if you actually think those websites are saying the same thing you've been telling me then just have your friend pass those out rather than that pamphlet.

Some of the things are the same but not all of them, and if you bothered to read my post (which I know you didn't, because you could not possibly have read and understood all of it and followed all the links and read everything on them, and then composed a reply in only six minutes) you would have seen that the digialdefensefund website only offers technical solutions. Well sorry, but technical solutions are not enough, especially when one of the things they have advised is clearly wrong. As I said (and I will keep saying) technical protection methods CAN be defeated and ARE defeated regularly, for example, turning off location services can be defeated and will prove conclusively where you are - leaving your phone at home cannot be defeated, and your location cannot be proved using you phone.

RecoveringYuppy 31st October 2022 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13935195)
No need to quote anything - its the line you've been pushing right from the get go.

The whole fact that you advocate going direct to abortion websites as a first port of call to get internet security information before actually implementing any internet security, necessarily implies that you do not think internet security is necessary.

You told me that my sites support the idea that internet security should be the first step. "first take steps" was the phrase you used. My sites do not support that and I don't either. First step is get proper help as soon as possible. Most likely by seeing your own doctor which your pamphlet says to avoid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13935195)
Some of the things are the same but not all of them, and if you bothered to read my post (which I know you didn't, because you could not possibly have read and understood all of it and followed all the links and read everything on them, and then composed a reply in only six minutes)

It is easy to read your nonsense. And, exactly right, your pamphlet is not the same as my websites especially the extremely bad advice to not even talk to your own doctor.

smartcooky 31st October 2022 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13935227)
You told me that my sites support the idea that internet security should be the first step. "first take steps" was the phrase you used. My sites do not support that and I don't either. First step is get proper help as soon as possible. Most likely by seeing your own doctor which your pamphlet says to avoid.


It is easy to read your nonsense. And, exactly right, your pamphlet is not the same as my websites especially the extremely bad advice to not even talk to your own doctor.

It has become pointless, so I'm done wasting my time dealing with your inability to understand (or your refusal to understand - and I no longer care which).

smartcooky 3rd November 2022 08:09 PM

I'll just leave this here for some posters to contemplate!

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/tech/...s-data-privacy

In some of the most restrictive states, digital rights experts warn that people’s search histories, location data, messages and other digital information could be used by law enforcement agencies investigating or prosecuting abortion-related cases.

America is a much different place today than in the pre-Roe era: Because of the pervasiveness of the Internet and mobile technology, people today share vast troves of data about themselves — whether they realize it or not — opening the door to significant surveillance.

For example, in states that make it a crime to help an abortion-seeker, data from women’s period-tracking or pregnancy apps could end up being subpoenaed as evidence against the person who helped them, said Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Virginia and author of the forthcoming book “The Fight for Privacy.” “Let’s say you got your period, stopped your period and then got your period again in a short time,” Citron said. “It’s [potential] evidence of your own criminality, or your doctor’s criminality.”

Groups promoting digital rights and reproductive freedoms are now warning people in states that criminalize providing access to abortions to safeguard their digital footprints when seeking abortion information and resources online and sharing tips for how to do so.

“We are living in a much more surveilled culture than we were in 1972 and prior, so in a future where abortion rights are limited or there’s not a federal right, people will be at risk for exercising their bodily autonomy,”

A growing number of US lawmakers have expressed alarm about the potential misuse of advertising data to prosecute abortion-seekers. In May, dozens of congressional Democrats wrote to Google saying that the company’s practice of collecting and storing vast troves of geolocation data from cellphones “will allow it to become a tool for far-right extremists looking to crack down on people seeking reproductive health care.” And on June 24, the same day the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, another group of US lawmakers wrote to the Federal Trade Commission saying Apple and Google should face an agency investigation over ad practices that they said could end up harming abortion-seekers.

“Data brokers are already selling, licensing, and sharing the location information of people that visit abortion providers to anyone with a credit card. Prosecutors in states where abortion becomes illegal will soon be able to obtain warrants for location information about anyone who has visited an abortion provider, wrote the group, which included Sens. Ron Wyden, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Rep. Sara Jacobs. “The FTC should investigate Apple and Google’s role in transforming online advertising into an intense system of surveillance that incentivizes and facilitates the unrestrained collection and constant sale of Americans’ personal data.”

RecoveringYuppy 3rd November 2022 08:29 PM

Read smartcooky's cnn link carefully and not in the context of anything he has said.

Here is original post that I took issue with.

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

The damn thing is obviously the work of someone trying sabotage a woman's ability to get an abortion. Things it advises:

1. Don't talk your doctor. How are you supposed to know what your options are without this?
2. Travel out of state without telling anyone where you are going and don't involve anyone in the planning. How dangerous is that?
3. Don't fly. Obviously don't want her getting there fast.

Ignore that advice. Pay attention to the experts without buying in to unnecessary fear.

Leumas 4th November 2022 12:00 AM

They are all over the country like the cockroaches
 
A Michigan judge tried to block an abortion rights measure. His ex-wife says he helped her get an abortion in college.

Stacyhs 4th November 2022 12:07 AM

"Choice for me but not for thee" is the GOP view on abortion. This hypocrisy comes as no surprise.

smartcooky 4th November 2022 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13937296)
Read smartcooky's cnn link carefully and not in the context of anything he has said.

Here is original post that I took issue with.

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

STOP telling people how to interpret MY posts!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13937296)
The damn thing is obviously the work of someone trying sabotage a woman's ability to get an abortion. Things it advises:

1. Don't talk your doctor.

A lie. It does not say that!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13937296)
2. Travel out of state without telling anyone where you are going and don't involve anyone in the planning.

Another lie. The whole tenor of the pamphlet is directed at a mother and daughter trying to get the daugter an abortion. You are intentionally misrepresenting what it says for your own dubious purposes. Stop lying!

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13937296)
3. Don't fly. Obviously don't want her getting there fast.

And another lie. ******* well read what it actually says and stop ******* lying about it!!

Leumas 4th November 2022 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13937351)
"Choice for me but not for thee" is the GOP view on abortion. This hypocrisy comes as no surprise.


And the more religious and more Republican they are the more perniciously hypocritical they are... I wonder why?

I think the answer has something to do with the Zomifying religion syphilitic parasite droppings rattling around their craniums in lieu of grey cells.

Much like this wretched creature...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

smartcooky 4th November 2022 12:40 AM

Right now, data brokers have access to every internet search you make, and every website you surf whether it is directly, or as a result of your searches, and they do this to build a profile or dossier of your activity to sell to advertisers who will tailor ads to suit your searches.

If you search for abortion advice or an abortion clinic, that information is immediately entered into your advertising profile the moment you hit enter - and it is there forever.

If you go to to an abortion advice website or an abortion clinic website, that visit will be entered into your dossier the moment you hit enter, and its there forever.

Law Enforcement can get a subpoena for that dossier, and can see every one of those searches you made, and every website you have visited. These dangers are real, not imagined and certainly not exaggerated or overblown.

If you or a friend is seeking an abortion, pay attention to the cybersecurity experts first and foremost and take precautions to anonymize your online activity BEFORE starting to search for abortion advice. There have already been abortion-seekers and people helping abortion-seekers prosecuted, that were undone by their visibility online! The numbers might be small but they are not insignificant, and its going to get worse... much, much worse.

Leumas 4th November 2022 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13937359)
Right now, data brokers have access to every internet search you make, and every website you surf whether it is directly, or as a result of your searches, and they do this to build a profile or dossier of your activity to sell to advertisers who will tailor ads to suit your searches.

If you search for abortion advice or an abortion clinic, that information is immediately entered into your advertising profile the moment you hit enter - and it is there forever.

If you go to to an abortion advice website or an abortion clinic website, that visit will be entered into your dossier the moment you hit enter, and its there forever.

Law Enforcement can get a subpoena for that dossier, and can see every one of those searches you made, and every website you have visited. These dangers are real, not imagined and certainly not exaggerated or overblown.

If you or a friend is seeking an abortion, pay attention to the cybersecurity experts first and foremost and take precautions to anonymize your online activity BEFORE starting to search for abortion advice. There have already been abortion-seekers and people helping abortion-seekers prosecuted, that were undone by their visibility online! The numbers might be small but they are not insignificant, and its going to get worse... much, much worse.


Indeed... Or ... in a more humorous but not less frightening way to put it.

start @minute 8:30...
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Mongrel 4th November 2022 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13937296)
Read smartcooky's cnn link carefully and not in the context of anything he has said.

Here is original post that I took issue with.

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

The damn thing is obviously the work of someone trying sabotage a woman's ability to get an abortion. Things it advises:

1. Don't talk your doctor. How are you supposed to know what your options are without this?
2. Travel out of state without telling anyone where you are going and don't involve anyone in the planning. How dangerous is that?
3. Don't fly. Obviously don't want her getting there fast.

Ignore that advice. Pay attention to the experts without buying in to unnecessary fear.

Looking at the context within that post it seems scary but appropriate advice, when it does say "Don't!" it then follows up with the reasoning behind it. In the post itself Smartcooky also says
Quote:

The pamphlet has a list of clinics in nearby states (with phone numbers and other contact details) who perform abortions, as well as doctors in those states who will supply abortion pills and explain how to use them, but I have left those out.
which covers any issues with talking to experts.

RecoveringYuppy 4th November 2022 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mongrel (Post 13937429)
Looking at the context within that post it seems scary but appropriate advice, when it does say "Don't!" it then follows up with the reasoning behind it. In the post itself Smartcooky also says which covers any issues with talking to experts.

And the reasoning is frequently bad and it delays you getting the information you need. Get the information you need immediately.

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.

Why is it you think that PP and DDF are not using the same language?

It's really difficult to do but that pamphlet isn't great advice even in Texas where a small amount of it has some merit (but not primary for the abortion seeker herself, for the people helping her).

It's the right wing trying to scare young mothers, don't help them!

RecoveringYuppy 4th November 2022 06:30 AM

Give a person this link, not that pamphlet. Planned Parenthood will give you good advice!

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...e-get-abortion

Even if you are in TX both of those sites (I'm referring to a site that site refers to) still tell you to get help in TX first. They point you at people who will help plan and fund your travel. You will miss out on those if you follow smartcooky's advice. An examination could even reveal you are still eligible for an abortion without leaving Texas, despite TX doing their best to make that impossible it is still legal and you should definitely take advantage of it if you can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by From the link above
But abortion is still legal in many states, and it's legal to go to a different state to get an abortion.


bruto 4th November 2022 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13937351)
"Choice for me but not for thee" is the GOP view on abortion. This hypocrisy comes as no surprise.

There's a supreme arrogance here as well. God forgave me but the rest of you clods won't get an appointment, so I'm taking over now.

Myriad 4th November 2022 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13934859)
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.


What I suggested might not have been the best or most effective idea in the world, but this moon-logic response doesn't address it at all. How generalizable is this principle? Should we not install fire sprinklers, lest they terrify people by reminding them of the possibility of fires?

RecoveringYuppy 4th November 2022 07:41 AM

"moon logic"? Following the advice of the experts on this matter is "moon logic"? The first priority is get help. I've cited the experts on that more times than I can count now.

wareyin 4th November 2022 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13937501)
"moon logic"? Following the advice of the experts on this matter is "moon logic"? The first priority is get help. I've cited the experts on that more times than I can count now.

And yet the actual experts keep telling you that the first priority is not to get help, but to make sure you aren't going to leave evidence first, then get help.

RecoveringYuppy 4th November 2022 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13937532)
And yet the actual experts keep telling you that the first priority is not to get help, but to make sure you aren't going to leave evidence first, then get help.

Cite one! I just cited two of the big ones contradicting that! PP and Abortion Finder say start with your doctor (or PP) and put legal advice later (many places it will be the very next step) and they phrase advice on "covering your tracks" as "if you have this concern". Digital Defense Fund phrases everything as "If you have this concern..." not "Do this ...". And they never say anything about not going to your doctor first.

ETA: Keep in mind that we are talking about something that is legal to do. Look up the page, I cited this as recently as this morning and have cited it several times.

ETA: A repeated link I think: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion

Note the following facts:
1. That page says nothing about covering your tracks at all.
2. If you go the "checklist" button on that site, you get a reference to a legal site with no direction to cover your tracks.
3. Digital privacy is foot note on that page.
4. If you go that Digital Defense fund link, you are not told to cover your tracks first, you aren't even told to do it all. It's phrased as optional depending on circumstances.
5. Avoiding prosecution isn't mentioned on that page (and it shouldn't be because the vast majority of people seeking an out of state abortion are not committing a crime).

The primary concerns on that page are shielding data from relatives, roommates, and abortion protestors.

If you click on the legal advice link I mentioned above you get all the way to this page (I'm citing Texas since they are the worst example). You are never told to cover your tracks. You are told to click on links to find abortion providers.

https://www.abortionfinder.org/abort...rtion-in-texas

Note how many times you don't see "cover your tracks" and do see "traveling out of state for an abortion is legal".

wareyin 4th November 2022 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13937533)
Cite one! I just cited two of the big ones contradicting that!

Multiple have already been cited in this thread. Your cites don't actually say what you're claiming, and the people you are arguing against also aren't saying what you're claiming.

smartcooky 4th November 2022 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13937469)
Give a person this link, not that pamphlet. Planned Parenthood will give you good advice!

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/le...e-get-abortion

And I repeat (and will continue to repeat every time you give this piece of advice) - when you click on that link, if you have not taken any cybersecurity measures, you will insert a record or your visit to that site in your internet profile. That profile can be subpoenaed by Law Enforcement, and it can and will be used against you if you come under suspicious of having or assisting someone else to obtain and abortion

Follow RecoveringYuppy's advice ONLY after making sure that you are anonymous online.

smartcooky 4th November 2022 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13937548)
Multiple have already been cited in this thread. Your cites don't actually say what you're claiming, and the people you are arguing against also aren't saying what you're claiming.

THIS!

RecoveringYuppy has been consistently and repeatedly

1. Citing links that do not support his claims
2. Creating strawman arguments and then arguing against them
3. Willfully ignoring /dismissing examples that debunk his claims
3. Claiming that abortion advisers give better cybersecurity advice than cybersecurity experts
5. Lying about what others here are saying

Blue Mountain 5th November 2022 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13937359)
Right now, data brokers have access to every internet search you make, and every website you surf whether it is directly, or as a result of your searches, and they do this to build a profile or dossier of your activity to sell to advertisers who will tailor ads to suit your searches.

If you search for abortion advice or an abortion clinic, that information is immediately entered into your advertising profile the moment you hit enter - and it is there forever.

Only if you're foolish enough to search using Google while signed in to a Google account. Use DuckDuckGo or StartPage instead.

Quote:

If you go to to an abortion advice website or an abortion clinic website, that visit will be entered into your dossier the moment you hit enter, and its there forever.
Only if you're foolish enough to search using Google while signed in to a Google account.

Quote:

Law Enforcement can get a subpoena for that dossier, and can see every one of those searches you made, and every website you have visited. These dangers are real, not imagined and certainly not exaggerated or overblown.
Only if you're foolish enough to search using Google while signed in to a Google account. And as much as I don't like Google, they have a history of fighting such subpoenas.

Blue Mountain 5th November 2022 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13937624)
And I repeat (and will continue to repeat every time you give this piece of advice) - when you click on that link, if you have not taken any cybersecurity measures, you will insert a record or your visit to that site in your internet profile. That profile can be subpoenaed by Law Enforcement, and it can and will be used against you if you come under suspicious of having or assisting someone else to obtain and abortion

What internet profile? Where? All major browsers have a "private mode" that does not keep a history of where you've been on the web. For maximum security, one could install a secondary browser, do the research using it (in private mode), then delete the browser afterwards.

Ergo, refinements to smartcooky's advice:
  • Install an alternate browser such as Firefox or Opera on your device
  • Use it only in private mode
  • Do not search using Google! Use a privacy focused search engine such as DuckDuckGo.
  • Remove the browser from the device after use. There is plausible deniability here: "A friend suggested I try it out. I did but I didn't like it, so I deleted it."

RecoveringYuppy 5th November 2022 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 13938014)
Quote:

Law Enforcement can get a subpoena for that dossier, and can see every one of those searches you made, and every website you have visited. These dangers are real, not imagined and certainly not exaggerated or overblown.
Only if you're foolish enough to search using Google while signed in to a Google account. And as much as I don't like Google, they have a history of fighting such subpoenas.

It's also very important to note that prosecutors can't get a subpoena for just anything. You have to have done something plausibly illegal (yes, I know someone might be able to dig up a rare scare case). And the case we are talking about is a woman seeking to travel to another state for a legal abortion. Per my multiple citations that is legal everywhere. Even in Texas. In Texas and maybe a couple other states people helping her may have to be careful though.

W.D.Clinger 5th November 2022 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 13938021)
What internet profile? Where? All major browsers have a "private mode" that does not keep a history of where you've been on the web. For maximum security, one could install a secondary browser, do the research using it (in private mode), then delete the browser afterwards.

Ergo, refinements to smartcooky's advice:
  • Install an alternate browser such as Firefox or Opera on your device
  • Use it only in private mode
  • Do not search using Google! Use a privacy focused search engine such as DuckDuckGo.
  • Remove the browser from the device after use. There is plausible deniability here: "A friend suggested I try it out. I did but I didn't like it, so I deleted it."

That's good advice, but none of that does anything about the fact that your ISP and the web sites you visit see your IP address and data (both uploaded and downloaded). Although your ISP may not bother to log that information, most web sites routinely log your IP address and the web pages you visit. If the operators of a web site want to hand that information over to law enforcement, they can do so, and I doubt whether there is any legal impediment to doing so (in the US) even if their sharing of that information is not compelled by a warrant. After all, you voluntarily provided that information to the web site when you visited its pages.

Your IP address does not identify you directly, but it may serve as an identifier that can be linked to you via other means, such as data you supply while interacting with web sites.

You can, of course, use a VPN. Do you trust your VPN provider more than your ISP?

Do you trust the web sites you visit? Should you?

Do you trust the court system to sign off on warrants only when there is probable cause that you have done something illegal?

Do you trust law enforcement to go after your browsing history only when you have done something illegal?

Do you trust your own understanding of what is legal and what is not? With respect to the subject of this thread, there are more than 50 different jurisdictions in the US alone, each with the potential (often realized) to have its own notion of what is legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13938025)
It's also very important to note that prosecutors can't get a subpoena for just anything. You have to have done something plausibly illegal (yes, I know someone might be able to dig up a rare scare case). And the case we are talking about is a woman seeking to travel to another state for a legal abortion. Per my multiple citations that is legal everywhere. Even in Texas. In Texas and maybe a couple other states people helping her may have to be careful though.

And do you trust the Texas attorney general to care about what is legal? You are aware, I hope, that the Texas AG has been indicted for his activities prior to taking office, and has been credibly accused of abusing his office.

RecoveringYuppy 5th November 2022 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 13938032)
And do you trust the Texas attorney general to care about what is legal? You are aware, I hope, that the Texas AG has been indicted for his activities prior to taking office, and has been credibly accused of abusing his office.

I certainly don't trust a lot of Texas, not just the AG, and, yes, I'm aware of all that.

But what kind of breakdown of law do you expect he is going to be able to carry out? How far will he able to break the law? The draconian law in Texas specifically excludes targeting the abortion seeking mother. And do you remember a very key detail about why that law has been so pernicious? He is actually precluded from enforcing it. That law has to be enforced by individuals bringing lawsuits. Remember that key detail?

BTW I've repeatedly called out that TX is an exception. The pamphlet I've been railing against as scaremongering has been promoted for states other than Texas. smartcooky has even raised the possibility that the law might change and be applied retroactively.

It also appears (based on a correction smartcooky offered) that his pamphlet was specifically being used in West Virginia. I've cited from multiple sources that W VA law excludes prosecuting the seeker. No state targets the seeker as far as I know (my sources for that were a few months old). W VA explicitly excludes the seeker. Not only is it perfectly legal to travel out of state, it's legal to seek and obtain an illegal abortion in West Virginia. Wrap your head around that. It will be the provider who is prosecuted, not the seeker.

The actual reality in the US is that targeting the mother is an extremely unpopular idea even among anti-choicers. I cited extremist legislators in Louisiana getting shot down trying to do that by a coalition that includes anti-choicers. Anti-choicers try to frame it as the mother being one of the victims of the abortion. They know what a **** storm they'll have if they target the seekers.

W.D.Clinger 5th November 2022 09:43 AM

With my highlighting:
Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13937352)
Another lie. The whole tenor of the pamphlet is directed at a mother and daughter trying to get the daugter an abortion. You are intentionally misrepresenting what it says for your own dubious purposes. Stop lying!

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13937359)
If you or a friend is seeking an abortion, pay attention to the cybersecurity experts first and foremost and take precautions to anonymize your online activity BEFORE starting to search for abortion advice. There have already been abortion-seekers and people helping abortion-seekers prosecuted, that were undone by their visibility online! The numbers might be small but they are not insignificant, and its going to get worse... much, much worse.


From the highlighted context above, it should be clear that this discussion of online privacy has been aimed at people who are assisting those seeking an abortion as well as those seeking an abortion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13938042)
I certainly don't trust a lot of Texas, not just the AG, and, yes, I'm aware of all that.

But what kind of breakdown of law do you expect he is going to be able to carry out? How far will he able to break the law? The draconian law in Texas specifically excludes targeting the abortion seeking mother. And do you remember a very key detail about why that law has been so pernicious? He is actually precluded from enforcing it. That law has to be enforced by individuals bringing lawsuits. Remember that key detail?

Although the Texas law specifically excludes targeting the person who is seeking an abortion in order to avoid becoming a mother, the law does not exclude targeting of those assisting her. You err by assuming my remarks were relevant only to the person seeking an abortion.

Although laws may say the Texas attorney general is not allowed to do certain things, Ken Paxton has a history of doing things that are not permitted by law.

Despite Paxton's efforts to run away from the subpoena, Paxton has been ordered to testify in a lawsuit whose plaintiffs say
...Paxton’s statements on social media and in the press make it clear that the state’s top lawyer believes the abortion funds can and should be prosecuted for their work over state lines.
ETA: Let it not be said that Texas AG Ken Paxton is completely unaware of threats to online privacy:
Attorney General Paxton has sued Google, alleging that the tech giant has unlawfully captured and used the biometric data of millions of Texans without properly obtaining their informed consent to do so.

....Google’s exploitation of the personal information of Texans for its own commercial interests is a knowing violation of the state’s Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act.

smartcooky 5th November 2022 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 13938021)
What internet profile? Where? All major browsers have a "private mode" that does not keep a history of where you've been on the web. For maximum security, one could install a secondary browser, do the research using it (in private mode), then delete the browser afterwards.

Ergo, refinements to smartcooky's advice:
  • Install an alternate browser such as Firefox or Opera on your device
  • Use it only in private mode
  • Do not search using Google! Use a privacy focused search engine such as DuckDuckGo.
  • Remove the browser from the device after use. There is plausible deniability here: "A friend suggested I try it out. I did but I didn't like it, so I deleted it."

Its not just the advertising side of internet surveillance that presents a risk though. If you had been following the discussion from the start, you would realize that.

Even if you use browser privacy modes or Duck Duck Go or StartPage etc, your ISP has a record of all the websites and webpages you surf and connect to and it knows what you have searched, even of you are signed out of, say, Google or Bing.

https://www.privacypolicies.com/blog/isp-tracking-you/

Despite the privacy precautions you take, there is someone who can see everything you do online: your Internet Service Provider (ISP).

When it comes to online privacy, there are a lot of steps you can take to clean up your browsing history and prevent sites from tracking you. Most modern web browsers include some form of privacy mode, which allows you to surf without saving cookies, temporary files, or your browsing history to your computer. Many browsers also include a "Do Not Track" mode, which automatically tells websites you want to opt-out of tracking cookies and similar technologies used for advertising purposes.

While these solutions may keep advertisers and anyone using your computer from viewing your browsing history, your ISP can still watch your every move.

... the data your ISP collects may be accessed by outside organizations, such as the police department or another government agency. If provided with a subpoena, your ISP is legally required to provide whatever information they have on you.

The obvious question here is, what does it matter? We're advertised to all day long on the Internet, what's a few more targeted ads? And who cares if the government uses ISP information to bust some criminals or crack down on terrorism.

That's a good thing, right?

If only it were that simple. For most people, knowing the government could view our online activity probably doesn't seem too scary. But if you live under an oppressive government, even seemingly innocent online activity can be very dangerous. Plus, in an era of almost-daily data breaches, assuming your information is safe with anyone is naive at best. Even ISPs can be affected.


While not using Google while signed in etc. is good advice, its not enough to protect you from a Law Enforcement subpeona to your ISP for the internet history they have on you.

smartcooky 5th November 2022 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 13938053)
Although laws may say the Texas attorney general is not allowed to do certain things, Ken Paxton has a history of doing things that are not permitted by law.

Despite Paxton's efforts to run away from the subpoena, Paxton has been ordered to testify in a lawsuit whose plaintiffs say
...Paxton’s statements on social media and in the press make it clear that the state’s top lawyer believes the abortion funds can and should be prosecuted for their work over state lines.
ETA: Let it not be said that Texas AG Ken Paxton is completely unaware of threats to online privacy:
Attorney General Paxton has sued Google, alleging that the tech giant has unlawfully captured and used the biometric data of millions of Texans without properly obtaining their informed consent to do so.

....Google’s exploitation of the personal information of Texans for its own commercial interests is a knowing violation of the state’s Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act.

Also, as I have mentioned earlier, pregnancy is on a fixed timeline with a definite endpoint. While the law in Texas does not specifically target the abortion seeker, there is no reason why a crooked AG like Paxton would not do so in ways that bend or break the law in attempts to run out the clock. For example, if Law Enforcement are investigating an abortion-seekers' mother, there is no reason to believe that a material witness order could not be issued to prevent the pregnant mother from traveling out of state, or perhaps even taken into custody to ensure appearance in a court hearing or trial.

Anyone who believes that these Republican anti-abortion types would not do this is naive in the extreme. If there is anything we have learned about them in the last 20 years or so, its that every time you think they couldn't possibly do things that are a more vile and more disgusting than they have already done, they do!

RecoveringYuppy 5th November 2022 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 13938053)
From the highlighted context above, it should be clear that this discussion of online privacy has been aimed at people who are assisting those seeking an abortion as well as those seeking an abortion.

I'm primary concerned with this:

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

That is bad advice. It's only slightly good in two or three states (and those states aren't West Virginia which is apparently where smartcooky's friend is using it). That pamphlet is about planning an out of state abortion which is legal everywhere for the abortion seeker. It has bad recommendations such as:

1. Don't talk to your own doctor. Nonsense, you need him to know what your options are.
2. Don't tell anyone where you are going or talk to anyone while travelling. Dangerous nonsense.
3. Don't fly. Nonsense, get to your destination as quickly as you can.

And all the precautions about burner phones, using cash, etc are just scare mongering wastes of time in practically every state of the union.

That is not good advice. It could come from a right wing saboteur trying to pose as an abortion advocate. Women following that advice will be burning up valuable time and unnecessarily afraid.

Some of that advice is useful in Texas but even there some of it is still dangerous and is written in unhelpful scaremongering tone. You'd do much better off to go to the Planned Parenthood website and step through their advice which will get you to actual legal, medical, and security people who are on the ground in Texas and on the side of Planned Parenthood.

RecoveringYuppy 5th November 2022 12:16 PM

I hope my prior post makes my concerns clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 13938053)
Although the Texas law specifically excludes targeting the person who is seeking an abortion in order to avoid becoming a mother, the law does not exclude targeting of those assisting her. You err by assuming my remarks were relevant only to the person seeking an abortion.

Of course. I've stated multiple times that TX is an exception (and I've mentioned at least Idaho and Nebraska as being exceptional in some way also). And I have said multiple times that people assisting the seeker in Texas need extra precautions but even then I wouldn't go with smartcooky's source or spin.

I'll re-read to see what your concerns I may have misaddressed or misunderstood but I think we're not going to have much disagree about from reading the rest of your post.

smartcooky 5th November 2022 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13938101)
I'm primary concerned with this:

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

That is bad advice. It's only slightly good in two or three states (and those states aren't West Virginia which is apparently where smartcooky's friend is using it). That pamphlet is about planning an out of state abortion which is legal everywhere for the abortion seeker. It has bad recommendations such as:

1. Don't talk to your own doctor. Nonsense, you need him to know what your options are.
2. Don't tell anyone where you are going or talk to anyone while travelling. Dangerous nonsense.
3. Don't fly. Nonsense, get to your destination as quickly as you can.

And all the precautions about burner phones, using cash, etc are just scare mongering wastes of time in practically every state of the union.

That is not good advice. It could come from a right wing saboteur trying to pose as an abortion advocate. Women following that advice will be burning up valuable time and unnecessarily afraid.

Some of that advice is useful in Texas but even there some of it is still dangerous and is written in unhelpful scaremongering tone. You'd do much better off to go to the Planned Parenthood website and step through their advice which will get you to actual legal, medical, and security people who are on the ground in Texas and on the side of Planned Parenthood.

More intentional mischaracterization and deliberate misrepresentation of what was said, and all taken entirely out of the overall context. You really can't help lying can you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13938109)
I hope my prior post makes my concerns clear.

Of course. I've stated multiple times that TX is an exception (and I've mentioned at least Idaho and Nebraska as being exceptional in some way also). And I have said multiple times that people assisting the seeker in Texas need extra precautions but even then I wouldn't go with smartcooky's source or spin.

I'll re-read to see what your concerns I may have misaddressed or misunderstood but I think we're not going to have much disagree about from reading the rest of your post.

If you think these draconian laws and measures are not going to spread to other redneck states, you are more naive that I first thought.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.