(05-27-2022 06:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (05-26-2022 12:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Not 100% sure, but I believe private messages in FB messages are encrypted and not able to be reviewed by FB.
I believe the threats were via private messages to a person he met via an online chat service that lived in Germany. That person then alerted another friend in the US once they heard the news.
In a similar vein to the FB DMs, the Buffalo shooter invited 30 people to a Discord channel to review and discuss his plans for the shooting. Not one person who accepted the invitation alerted authorities. Authorities are investigating whether a former FBI official, who was invited to that channel, accepted the invitation and failed to alert authorities.
So a common link here is “public” notification of these activities, but either a failure by design to identify them and proactively alert authorities, or just a failure in general (I don’t believe Discord is encrypted the same way Facebook is).
The question becomes, do we collectively want these tech companies to be constantly going through these sort of private messages, private channels, etc., or do we want them to be hands off?
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/autho...95d6f.html
I don't know either about the encryption or whatever.... Here is my problem with this conversation....
1) just the other day, so in a similar timeframe to these events... My significant other posted a picture of me on the waterfront... My response to her, admittedly in an open forum was... Nice picture of the waterfront... too bad that ugly guy had to photobomb your picture. My post was censored by Facebook.
I understand the differences in forum, but I also clearly understand the differences in the meanings of the words.
2) The left seems 'hell bent' on eliminating a constitutionally protected right to bear arms... but places what seems to me to be an arbitrary line in the sand regarding 'free speech'
a) that is clearly 'hate' speech which is not protected, according to many of these same people
b) I'm not sure there is an expectation of 'privacy' if you're using public airwaves to communicate hate... just like cell phones. I obviously don't know the law, but I don't expect that anything,... including my PMs on here, can't be read by SOMEONE.
3) the reason the above is important is because the left wants to put limits on law abiding citizens to stop OTHER people from engaging in illegal acts.... Well, 90% of people don't threaten to kill other people or shoot up schools in ANY forum. (Almost) nobody is against it being 'illegal' to shout fire in a crowded theatre... (Almost) nobody would be against it being 'illegal' to threaten to kill someone or shoot up a school... ESPECIALLY if the 'response' is to seek some sort of 'help' for that person (because they haven't really done anything yet)
THIS is the sort of 'common sense' gun regulations that we need.... and not all of this lunacy being couched as 'common sense'. I mean, if being a member of a group that has never committed violence can get you put on an FBI watch list or no fly or whatever... then threatening to kill someone certainly should warrant being watched (and likely denied a gun) as well.
Does it mean we have terabytes of data being disseminated every second by what could be an intrusive government?? ABSOLUTELY... and could that become a problem?? ABSOLUTELY... and if it does, we will have the ability to communicate with each other, vote and if necessary, bear arms to 'prevent the abuse of its powers'.
I think enough people to over-ride the Constitution if necessary would support a very carefully worded bill/law that defined 'threatening to kill people' as 'hate speech' enough to warrant a 'welfare check' or a limited warrant to see if the person was merely musing, or actually planning something.... which is VASTLY different from telling 100mm that they have to give up a constitutionally protected right in order to do almost nothing to stop maniacs from killing people.
More of the 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't really have a concern'.... which isn't the case in the many proposed gun laws and regulations.