this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
1011 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
87256 readers
5387 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This warrantless mass surveillance technology chain can also easily be used to silence dissent, chill speech, and oppress by race, religion, gender, sexuality, pregnancy status, and any other status so deemed problematic by those with state power. This is not a power delegated to the government by the constitution, and it was not built to protect the people.
We accept impositions on our liberty for the protection of the general welfare. Did this actually protect us?
I know right. The kinda events that they said this was to protect from rarely occur. When you look back they spruiked the word terror and extremist, over and over to get acceptance and now...well now almost everyone fits in that category if your language or moderate actions are not in flavour.
spruiked (transitive, Australia) To promote a thing or idea to another person, usually informally.
Wait, other people don't use spruiked?
I guess I should take the opportunity to point out that it's pronounced "sprooked". With the "oo" from "moon", not "nook".
I honestly thought it must be a typo but couldn’t figure out where it went wrong
Nope, at least not in North America, and it sounds extremely Oceanian, so I'd be surprised if it's used in the UK
It was a power pretty heavily implied not to belong to the government. And given thet the 9th says that rights exist beyond those explicitly stated, it should be pretty clear.
Anyways we must make the implied right to privacy explicit
I would be interested in reading more about how you imagine this might work.
To be up front, I don't consider unencrypted messages on someone else's server to be "private" at all; Snapchat can obviously see everything anyone sends unencrypted on their app. So, that's where I'm starting from.
In this case it pertains to how the app spent years cultivating an atmosphere indicating discretion. That's why last time I thought about it (a decade ago) it was mostly popular for sending nudes.
My position here is that the government has been pressuring private companies to give them all the warrantless data they want. And I think they shouldn't be allowed to ask. Hell I think they should need a warrant to view surveillance data unless someone in the incident consents or the owner of the data is the accuser.
Now I acknowledge that those two paragraphs allow this situation. But I also think that we shouldn't be holding a reasonable expectation of privacy to what a privacy advocate thinks, it should be what an ordinary citizen and user of a service thinks. In that case, either I'm old and out of touch since my sending tit pics over Snapchat days are long past (I am) and this woman had an atypical expectation of privacy. Or Snapchat isn't properly expressing to users the degree of surveillance they're under and this should be taken as private communication and Snapchat should be forced to either change their surveillance levels or work to ensure that the average user understands the level of surveillance they're under.
So yeah I think this is mostly a consumer rights issue, but it's also an issue of the government keeps asking for data on private citizens that they shouldn't be allowed to collect themselves and I don't think they should even be allowed to ask
If the government asks, they typically need a warrant. (There are exceptions, but they're fairly narrow). Is there a specific example you're thinking of?
This scenario, though, is Snapchat volunteering the information. It wouldn't really make much sense to require the government to get a warrant to recieve a tip, would it?
And shouldn't we applaud the practice? Sure, in this scenario it was a false positive, but if this student teacher were actually planning to do what she joked about and Snapchat sat on that information, I suspect many of the people poohpoohing Snapchat would be angry that they didn't inform law enforcement.
I have no idea why people are using Snapchat in 2026; it was never as private or discreet as it pretended to be, as you could just take a picture of the "self deleting" message with another device. However, it sounds like people still using it need to demand E2EE direct messages. It worked for Facebook.
This is why privacy, no access encryption services, VPNs, etc, are becoming so popular. Not because anyone is planning to do anything illegal, but because we don't trust the people spying on us not to show up at your door. It's already happening, it wasn't dramatic or unrealistic like everyone says, even just this article proves it. You should be able to exist freely, without someone over-analysing every text.