Look, I’m as against this as anyone. I think most people on Lemmy agree the big corporations have too much data on us and don’t safeguard it’s appropriately, but we don’t need to pretend articles say something they don’t.
Whatever. You said yourself, it’s stated in the second. Soo… either take it or don’t. I read the second article and in absence of being able to locate it to share - shared the first, initially. At the end of the day the ability to pay for data exists without the need to warrant it. A) It’s a very real problem and B) I’m not here to please everyone.
Literally from the first sentence of the first article…
“obtained her Facebook messages using a search warrant.”
Second also references a search warrant affidavit.
Yea I know but further into it it mentioned purchasing
Not in the first article.
And second just mentions it’s a possibility.
Look, I’m as against this as anyone. I think most people on Lemmy agree the big corporations have too much data on us and don’t safeguard it’s appropriately, but we don’t need to pretend articles say something they don’t.
This did not happen in the case you mentioned.
Whatever. You said yourself, it’s stated in the second. Soo… either take it or don’t. I read the second article and in absence of being able to locate it to share - shared the first, initially. At the end of the day the ability to pay for data exists without the need to warrant it. A) It’s a very real problem and B) I’m not here to please everyone.
edit: clarity