This is a shit article from a shit source. It references itself, which, in turn, references guardian. There’s no mention of police pulling data from period tracking services. The only related thing I could find in OP was a quote from whatever tortoisemedia is:
We already know that police routinely remove phones and computers from women suspected of having an [illegal] abortion and it’s even happening following miscarriage and pregnancy loss.
And it sucks, but this is not a dystopian surveillance bullshit OP is trying to sell. Put a password on your shit and you’re good to go.
Yes, and I despair only at this steaming pile of trigger bait having got so many upvotes. I expected some degree of critical thinking on Lemmy, not the same sort of knee-jerk conspiracy bullshit that abounds on Reddit and Twitter. Silly me.
You’re totally downplaying the tortoisemedia quote by not mentioning it’s from the co-chair of the British Society of Abortion Care Providers, a totally legitimate and mainstream body.
If you think this is a shit article, tell me what you think it gets wrong. Or are you basing your opinion on the fact you weren’t previously aware of tortoisemedia?
You’re being disingenuous.
What it gets wrong is ethics. If you’re writing about one thing, but giving it a title of another - you’re a shit publication.
They’re writing about the Police using tracking data and that’s what the title of the article is. You keep saying they’re a shit publication based on absolutely nothing aside from your opinion.
You also stated this is a shit article, when I asked you to say why, you chose not to, instead saying they’re a shit publication. So I’ll ask you again. If you believe this is a shit article, tell me what they’re wrong about.
I think the issue is with what is implied by the headline as well as the context of being posted on a privacy community. I as well as many others probably ready that headline assuming the police somehow had access to that data from the app outside of the person’s phone. I know that also makes some assumptions, but probably the ones most people on a privacy community are thinking/making. Most of us would be assuming that if the app was sharing this data with police, or the police had some back door way of accessing it, then this would be a big privacy news item. The fact that they viewed the data on an unlocked phone and app is much less a privacy concern, more of a policy concern that they are allowed and able to do that (admittedly, still privacy related but to me this is like 80% policy concern and 20% privacy related). Also what actually happened is pretty different from what the headline on a privacy community implies which is where people are having issue. Some examples of this to make it even more clear…
- Statement: Facebook post “My aunt got her covid vaccine and died within 24 hours! Don’t trust these vaccines!”
- Implication: The covid vaccine killed her.
- Reality: She was in a car accident on the way home.
The statement isn’t technically false. The first sentence is true, the second sentence can absolutely be the opinion of the poster. But the combination implies that she died from the vaccine, something totally different from what actually happened.
- Statement: c/Privacy post “Police use OneNote information to convict murder suspect!”
- Implication: Moreso because of being on a privacy community, most would read this as police somehow having access to OneNote data either through sharing or backdoor.
- Reality: Suspect had a print out of their shopping list made in OneNote consisting of a shovel, ducktape, bleach etc and coordinates of a remote spot where body was found laying on their desk at home.
If it was posted to a non privacy related community, the assumption that there was a privacy concern may be much less, but I think the headline would still be misleading. In the facebook example the person was misrepresenting what happened to push a political agenda that vaccines are bad. In both the murder example and in the article linked in your post, the headline is trying to misrepresent what happened to increase engagement.
There are very clear reasons why the headlines weren’t the following:
- British police use data found on unlocked phone to investigate miscarriage. (Still concerning for reasons of morality and policy, but probably not going to get tons of attention on a privacy community)\
- RIP my aunt who died in a car crash on her way home after getting the covid vaccine.
- Police convict murderer found with evidence of crime on suspect’s desk. (Yes, I realize the list isn’t “evidence” per say, but you see what I mean. This post would not get any attention either.)
Since this got really long, it’s important to say I was just trying to show how the headline is misrepresentation of what happened. I don’t think you posted it with any ill intention or that there aren’t other moral and political issues with what is happening.
It’s dystopian shit like this that is beginning to make me despair of what my country will be in 10 years time.
The passing of the online safety bill, this sort of shit, the recent legislation making it more and more difficult to protest anything, the massive expansion of facial recognition cameras everywhere. We’re on the edge of a bad period I think.
The UK has always been an oppressor lol
True, but it’s definitely getting both worse and more blatant.
No, you’re just becoming more aware of it
Worse than their genocides in Africa, America, etc?
Are you genuinely asking me if the ramping up of invasive legislation in the UK is worse than genocide?
Because you said the country has gotten worse than historically, yes.
…on a privacy related Community regarding a privacy related story, talking about privacy related legislation.
You’re insinuating two entirely disparate things are the same. Privacy related legislation and our historical propensity for genocide.
Possibly could have reworded that last sentence. Unless it was a deliberate pun?
Can’t think what they’d want from this though. And why the police? They’ve got better things to do, this is a health matter.
The police think they’re solving murders.
Downvote this post for spreading fear-mongering, poorly-researched “journalism.”
Is abortion not legal in the UK?
Literally at the top of the article:
Though abortion is legal in the UK, there are TRAP laws in place requiring certain conditions to be met first, paramount of which is that two separate doctors need to agree that the patient meets the criteria of the 1967 Abortion Act before any treatment can go ahead. Self-managed abortion is a criminal offense with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment in the UK, as is any abortion performed after the pregnancy has progressed passed 23 weeks and six days, unless the patient is at risk of serious physical harm or death, or the fetus has severe developmental anomalies.
Thanks
Up to 24 weeks. Someone was recently jailed for self inducing an abortion near term. If we want to get technical, abortion is decriminalised in that it’s an offence to do it unless it’s done medically and two doctors need to sign off that it’s necessary for the physical or mental health of the patient.
So nearly the same as in germany. Ok
When authoritarians don’t fear consequences, there’s is no limit to what they are willing to commit.
“Given that one in four pregnancies end in miscarriage, and the vast majority of them are unexplained, this rise in investigations of and the treatment of unexplained miscarriage as suspicious is deeply concerning…”
Keeping track of livestock
