Sixty minutes. That’s how long it took for a private Snapchat message to travel from Kristen Volpe’s phone to the FBI to the deputies standing in her elementary school hallway. On January 29, 2025, the 22-year-old student teacher at John L. Hensey Elementary in Washington, Illinois, vented to her boyfriend and two roommates — three people total — after a student closed her laptop mid-class and wiped her lesson plan. She referenced shooting the student or the school. She meant it as a frustrated joke. Snapchat’s algorithm didn’t get the humor.
No student reported her. No parent. No coworker. The flag was entirely automated. Snapchat’s policy permits voluntary emergency disclosures to law enforcement — no warrant required — when the platform determines imminent harm exists. The algorithm makes that initial call. Think of it like your Ring doorbell deciding to call 911 on its own, except the doorbell is reading your text messages.
The amount of people in this thread that seem to think invasion of privacy is cool to police thought crime is honestly shocking. The subject and subject matter are completely irrelevant.
In addition, teachers are fucking people and venting and joking in private with close friends is sacrosanct.
My guess is most are very young. Goes to show our civil liberties worldwide, especially since 9/11, have eroded tremendously. Young people have grown up in a world where privacy is a joke and government spying is a foregone conclusion.
I work mostly with people older than myself. The younger ones are shocked by everyone’s lackadaisical privacy practices. The older ones all say, “oh well, it’s everywhere and I have nothing to hide. It’s not like you can get away from it.”
I don’t know a single young person who actually cares about Internet privacy. The vast majority of them are on social media all the time.
I realized this because we have a younger engineer who didn’t even have an Adblock running on their browser. When I asked them about it, they just told me that they grew up seeing ads so it doesn’t matter to them 🤯
Damn, it really sucks how normalized internet brainrot is becoming.
I’m a young people that’s a privacy and free speech extremist. Thus, you’re refused.
I now know 1, so that is true.
To clarify, I’m not saying any demographic is above poor privacy concerns. But there is a subtle difference between laziness / difficulty understanding how to mitigate the threat and the believe that it isn’t a threat but an okay behavior, however subtle that difference is. I don’t want to sound like an old man tilting at windmills and blaming things on the youth. I actually think it is a problem that they are just suffering, not responsible for.
The idea that mass violence, which happens very rarely all things considered, justifies constant mass surveillance and automated reaction is very troubling. The new “think of the children,” I suppose.
In fact, we also have countries with less surveillance and less mass violence. And that’s most countries these days. There’s been only one single school shooting ever in my country and I actually knew people at that school at the time (my ex had graduated from there, but her cousin was still attending). 8th or 9th grade boy with a strict military father was being bullied by a teacher so he shot the teacher. That teacher would give him bad grades knowing his father would punish him for it (someone said he’d have to run 20 km home from school if he got a bad grade, but I’m not sure if that’s true), mocked him apparently, etc. Not trying to justify the kid’s actions, just illustrating what it took to get someone in a country other than the US to even go that far. He didn’t announce his plans to his friends beforehand AFAIK, so surveillance wouldn’t even have caught it.
Where I live there is little to no mass surveillance, and the only “shootings” in schools are the high school students shooting alcohol hidden from the teachers.
We do have crime, like every other country, but by population count, it’s not that bad.
There are cameras in most key intersection in major cities, and they are monitored by the emergency services, but no plate readers or face recognition whatsoever.
but no plate readers or face recognition whatsoever.
we promise
No, we know. My wife used to manage a shift of the emergency services, and they just don’t have the funds. Not happening for another 4 to 8 years.
Mass violence that the US as a society endorses by doing nothing to address the root causes of gun access and lack of mental health treatments.
It’s as if they can create the conditions for mass repression and then justify any action.
Ironically the far-right was worried about this 40+ years ago with the “FEMA Camps” narrative - right up until ICE started rounding up citizens and US residents alike in the exact facial fashion described
I am dripping in the irony
Dark humour is half of what keeps people going in Jobs where the situation is dire. You have to let it out somehow, if you just let it bottle up you’ll explode and won’t be able to do the job anymore.
I take solace in this is the top comment, at least.
It’s frightening that many people are fine with this sort of invasion of privacy as long as the reason is “good enough”. This is a knee-jerk, uneducated response that only makes sense to the ignorant. I also expect they’re young, and spent more time looking at their phone than paying attention in class.
I think of it the way the ACLU thinks about defending racists: it’s totally irrelevant whether or not the joke is fucked up.
The US has worked itself into a horrible situation whereby the protection of the second amendment comes at the cost of all other rights for citizens. Trying to do this without coming out and saying so results in an enmeshment of industry and government that would make Mussolini proud.
I can theoretically understand why terrified parents who can’t think of any other way to protect their children might want this, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. They’re selling everyone out for the appearance of temporary protection from the real problem.
Exactly! The joke is fucked up, and yet we deserve the right to reasonable privacy in spaces where we’re told we can expect reasonable privacy (and the right to have spaces with reasonable privacy). Consent for mass surveillance and tyranny is built from situations like this where the question can be shifted to being about what was done under the presumption of privacy rather than the fact that it was violated.
I’m reminded a lot of the therapist rule when dealing with suicidal people (Ive had thoughts myself and others in my life so I’ve had enough discussions around this).
Mentioning suicidal ideation usually isn’t enough to warrant a call. What will is when you start planning. If you get into details of how and who you’re contacting.
Here too she just mentioned it off hand and didn’t mention having a plan to go do anything. Seems excessive to do a call on that and really into “thought crime” territory.
I believe there are a few things you simply shouldn’t joke about. Killing children is one of those things. But yes, everybody has a fundamental right to their privacy and it’s insane that mass surveillance is becoming more and more common and way too many people seem to just accept or ignore it.
I believe there are a few things you simply shouldn’t joke about
And I believe that belief makes you a dangerous idiot who’ll happily support Fascism.
Me thinking that joking about killing kids isn’t ok makes me a fascist? I don’t quite understand how you got to that conclusion, but ok.
To be clear, I didn’t say people can’t say what they want to. I think that freedom of speech is incredibly important. It’s none of my business what you choose to say if I’m not involved, but I would not be comfortable joking around with such a serious topic. If you are, then more power to you I guess?
The relevant part of my reply was about mass surveillance being bad, and I don’t think that’s a very hot take. What I think about certain dark joke topics doesn’t matter.
Any restriction on your freedom to say offensive shit must be fascism, right?
Couldn’t you just fuck-off into the woods and enjoy all your freedoms alone?
Any restriction on your freedom to say offensive shit must be fascism, right?
Not what I said. But any restriction that leads to law enforcement intervention without a person complaining damn sure is.
Couldn’t you just fuck-off into the woods and enjoy all your freedoms alone?
No, and fuck you for asking. If I have to share the planet with a bunch of copsucking shitbags who believe in thoughtcrime for dead baby jokes but people saying the most horrifically racist, sexist, or homophobic bullshit is just the price of free speech, you can suck it up and deal with there being people out there who can tell the difference between “popular” and “right”.
I believe there are a few things you simply shouldn’t joke about. Killing children is one of those things.
I don’t think we could be friends. Not because I have a need to make jokes about killing kids, but because I don’t want to spend the whole time worrying about how you’ll take a joke.
That’s fine. I think we’d get along fine if you don’t make a habit of joking about killing kids, slavery, rape or animal abuse. If you think that makes me too sensitive then I’m happy to stay away.
You SHOULD be able to joke about ANYTHING. Who decides what things are permisible? Whoever yoy give the power to do so will then use it arbitrarily to only allow the speech that supports them — that’s how fascism is built, in fact.
Yes, we agree. You should be able to. No one should face legal action until an actual crime has been commited and joking isn’t a crime. But that doesn’t mean doing so is good. I did not say there are things you shouldn’t be able to joke about, just that there are a few topics so serious and tragic that joking about them is bad.
Saying something isn’t good is the same to say that something shouldn’t be done, is a logic equivalence in ethics.
Yes. Again, we agree… I’m both saying it shouldn’t be done because it’s bad, and that you should be able to do so because it’s legal and freedom of speech is incredibly important. Those aren’t contradicting statements.
“You should do that but you shouldn’t do that”
Anyways, besides the straw man, the point is that I don’t even consider that to be bad, so I think that saying that it shouldn’t be done — even if merely at the moral-level, but not at the legal level — it’s problematic.
Edit: The straw man is “You should do that but you shouldn’t do that”, that’s simply a joke.
Ok… At least stop putting words in my mouth. And aside from what you’re trying to do right now, there have been no strawmen in our conversation so far. Something not being illegal doesn’t inherently mean everyone should do whatever that is. I’m not saying “you should do that but you shouldn’t do that”. I’m saying you shouldn’t do that, but that is has to remain legal. As an example that I truly hope most people would agree with, cheating on your partner isn’t illegal (most places), but it’s still a really shitty thing to do.
We can definitely disagree on the social ethics around such jokes. As you say, you think such jokes are fine and I don’t. And that’s fine. I’m not advocating for censorship or anything like that. I think I’ve made it very clear that I think freedom of speech is important.
If she was in a bar and she was venting to her friends about shooting students or shooting up a school and the bartender heard her and contacted the police, would you call it an invasion of privacy?
The real story is that people consider unencrypted messages on Snapchat “private”.
This isn’t a bar. This is too people joking in their living room. Or at least, that’s how Snapchat conditions you into treating the space.
This isn’t a bar. This is too people joking in their living room. Or at least, that’s how Snapchat conditions you into treating the space.
Your final sentence shows that you know that the first part of your comment is misleading, so It’s curious that you didn’t correct it.
“How they condition you” is irrelevant. You may be “conditioned” to think your little corner of the bar is your private space, but that doesn’t make it so.
This story isn’t a tale of an invasion of privacy, or even a tale of mass surveillance; it’s a tale of people being unable to determine what is private and what isn’t.
I can’t help but wonder if people would be messing this up so badly if it were Snapchat automatically forwarding an alert to the police because they detected an adult soliciting a non adult for sex, or if the police arrived and the teacher was making plans to shoot up a school.
In any event, I’ll save my outrage about invasions of privacy and mass surveillance (both very real concerns) for actual instances where one or both occur.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Your Private Chats have no expectation of privacy.
In what way is an unencrypted message sent using software you don’t control on a server you don’t control “private”?
Does Snapchat even call them “private chats”? Or are they called something like “Direct Messages”?
A 22 year old should know better.
Maybe we shouldn’t bait-and-switch people by calling something private that is anything but.
This is just victim blaming. These people are victims of corporate deceit, and you’re blaming them for it. What was she wearing? Maybe that contributing to it as well!
Hey, if you want to be angry at Snapchat, be my guest. I have never used it so I don’t know for sure what they claim. I do assume that they never explicitly say your DMs can’t be read by them, because lawyers exist.
There is no victim here. The student teacher did say she was going to shoot up a school. There were no charges filed, and she rightfully lost her job for poor judgement.
If she wanted a truly private conversation, there are plenty of options. Hell, even Facebook encrypts DMs by default, iirc.
People need to learn the difference between “feels private” and “is private”.
shouts death threat in public forum
“THEY CANT TAKE MUH FREEDUMMMM!”
You should fucking die if you think like that, or you may be the next fucking Hitler :3
I hate that the cute face at the end makes this message sound adorable.
Yeah, I’d call it an invasion of privacy.
But you’re making a false equivalence fallacy anyways. It’s not the same an app that claims to be private and a public site, and even in the latter any joke SHOULD NOT BE prosecuted if it not involves obvious, clear and sound planning of really doing it. You can like or dislike more or less that joke, but it’s still just a joke.
What privacy existed? (Note: not the illusion of privacy.) Snapchat has full access to all her messages, and always has.
She was not charged, let alone prosecuted.
Bro, they sell the DM and Stories on Snapchat to be private “if you decide so”. They do separate private Stories (that supposedly are only shared with people you whitelist) and public Stories, and the same with DM. I know as I have used Snapchat back in 2021, before I got heavily interested in privacy. Maybe some things have changed, but they do still sell, promote and do marketing stuff telling that it is private. Yeah, we do know it’s false, but trust me that marketing can be a powerful force.
Hey Tesseract, I wholeheartedly agree with this. Fucking ban me god dammit!
Could you show a link because I haven’t seen anyone saying that.
Sort by Controversial.
Scroll. That was the entire thread when I posted. And they were all upvoted.
my knee jerk reaction was thinking the same as you but this very paticular case, i am not sure. i havent made up my mind.
lets talk about opposite ends and then talk about snapchat
-
if a person is sitting in mcdonalds saying they want to shoot up a school, we wouldnt think it weird if someone called the authorities. in fact peoples lives have been saved because someone overheard something
-
in contrast, a private conversation on signal should never be read and everyone should stop using it if it is read.
now snap chat is neither a public place or an encrypted communication app. it falls in between. it is a social media app. would you be worried if it was facebook? i keep thinking about it. why shouldnt snapchat report it? keep on mind that i have never used snapchat, facebook, or instagram and i thought snapchat was basically for sending pictures. (i am older). but, honest question, why would people expect privacy on snapchat? again, i havent used it and not as “hip”, so i am genuinely asking and this isnt a loaded question
I haven’t used it in some years now but I suspect it’s still the same. Snapchat is a messaging platform with the main form of communication being images showing what the user is doing at the moment, either through direct message which disappears after the receiver views the picture, or through a “story” which is removed after 24 hours. You can send people direct/private messages with just text (and stickers, etc.) as well and those conversations disappear after both parties view the messages and leave the chat page. You have the option to set your stories as “private” so only friends can see it, and you assume a “private” message between you and another user is “private”, or the image you sent to your friend will only be seen by your friend. But people forget (because nobody reads them) that it doesn’t mean they didn’t agree to T&C that tell them that nothing they do on the platform is private and they give snap inc the legal right to use or sell their data. They don’t advertise E2EE, but I’d say a majority of Snapchat users either don’t care to understand the value in E2EE or they have never heard of it and don’t even know what it is.
If I overheard some kids making obvious jokes about shooting a kid at their school while sitting in a public area, I would do nothing, “kids are dumb, they shouldn’t say that shit because it’s a sensitive subject, but obviously they’re not being serious” I would think.
If I overheard them planning a murder of a fellow student, or of anyone, whether with a gun or any method, I would be inclined to call authorities and report it.
Imo, this situation is wrong, it shouldn’t have happened, no planning occurred, it was just a joke, as tasteless as it may have been, it was still just a joke to let off some steam. A crime would have been if they made an elaborate plan on how they’d do it, like waiting for the kid to be alone, and talking about ways to do it without getting caught or saying they would bring a gun to school tomorrow and shoot the kid, these sentences all have planning involved. Saying I want to kill myself after an embarrassing moment or kill someone else after they hurt my feelings doesn’t justify someone calling the cops on me because they fear for my or someone else’s safety and now they’ve ruined my career over a thought that slipped out of my mouth during a moment of emotional distress.
People should be seeing this story and boycotting Snapchat, users stories should be riddled with links to this story and educating friends about why online privacy is important and how to protect themselves, but it won’t be, I’m sure most will not ever even hear about this story. Plus, the comment this person made is obviously controversial so there’s a lot of differing opinions about whether it was okay to say that to someone in a school setting, but this isn’t about that at all, it’s about privacy, doesn’t matter what was said, doesn’t matter where it was said. What matters is that a person said something to another person in confidence and without either of them realizing someone else was spying on them, like a bug being planted in someone’s home. The conversation didn’t happen at a school, it happened on the Internet, in a “private” room.
Preventing crime is and should be a tricky business, because if it was easy then that would mean nobody would have any privacy, physical and digital locks would have to be purchased from the government so they could access anything you have. Houses and cars would be required to have microphones and cameras that our governments would have full access to. Nothing we said, did, or owned would be private. Nothing you invented would be yours, nothing you build would be yours, and nothing that makes you happy/sad/angry/embarrassed/etc. would be yours.
This is blatant proof you are the product and everything you do on the platform is surveiled. Individuals are not as valuable as communities, so ridding their platform of one person means absolutely nothing to them even if it ruins the individuals life in the process. If they started the platform with these controversies, they would have never gotten traction. They got traction because the mechanics of the system give you the impression that you are talking privately and everything you do on this platform “disappears” into nothingness and you don’t have to worry about an embarrassing picture or message coming out years down the road.
Sorry for the long winded response lol
TL;DR Snapchat gives the false impression of private conversations that disappear forever, sort of like how signal can be configured, but it has a higher priority for image sharing, and of course, nothing is encrypted so nothing is really ever deleted. It doesn’t matter the individual was at a school when they said the thing, the context of what they said is important, and more importantly the fact they said it in confidence is important.
-
Is my brain just not working or does that first sentence make no sense?
“that seem to think invasion of privacy is cool to police thought crime”
What? (I’m not disagreeing with you, based on the rest and what I think you’re saying, just to be clear)
I can try and rephrase: It’s shocking to me how many people support invasions of privacy for the purposes of detecting and prosecuting ideas and thoughts.
Americans would rather have thought crime and mass surveillance than give up their guns, because they need those guns to combat a tyrant or fascist.
So anyway, how’s USA’s government going these days? Surely not fascist or tyrannical with all those guns around, right?
Right?
Welcome to the brave new world.
Next step: Automated execution.
*by drone
deleted by creator
The teacher did nothing wrong either. Making bad jokes and venting your frustration are quite normal things.
If you are human, that is.
If you are human, that is.
Now I’m imagining if a bot made such a joke. That would be a very different situation.
If they make those psych eval meters from the anime Psycho Pass I am done for.
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.
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
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.
Now that you know everything on Snapchat is going through active automated filtering, consider what Snapchat has chosen NOT to flag and is allowing to flow freely, like sex trafficking and the sale of minors.
As unfair and life-changing as this event has been for this young teacher, I think the actual story of what Snapchat (and every other digital communication method) is reading/tracking yet allowing is a much, much bigger story. And dirtier. With billionaires and pedophiles and all manner of nasty allowables we do not yet know.
That’s a great point. If they aren’t scanning for things, they likely wouldn’t be held responsible, but if they are scanning things, now they are the arbiters of what gets passed on or not.
ChatGPT had an issue where someone got flagged for being a risk, they assessed it in person and decided not to action it, and then something happened. They’re being sued and the Canadian government is getting involved.
What has snapchat now actively decided not to action, where something bad happens, now that we know they read everything?
It’s HEARTENING to Know these Platforms have the ABILITY to STOP atrocities and Almost Always choose NOT too! <3
yeah.
Its amazing how they never once stopped an actual act of violence, but someone venting about a stressful day gets a full swat deployment.
We wouldn’t know about the acts of violence they stopped, though, would we?
You think authorities wouldnt be on prime time news gloating about stopping attacks before they happened and justifying the privacy destroying bullshit they use as a necessary sacrifice for safety?
It would be easy to find out, one way or another, when reviewing arrest records and convictions, no?
Sort of the joke in this. Crime in western countries has declined as police hyper-surveillance has increased. I don’t think it is unfair to say that a suffocating perpetual dragnet created by a public-private Big Brother network has contributed to depressed rates of stochastic violence. Or that the few groups capable of committing crimes and getting away with it are the police and sheriffs offices, the individuals in their employment, and the turncoats they use to influence and infiltrate other groups.
We don’t count “preemptively solved crimes”, unless we’re trying to make headlines with “foiled assassination/terrorist plot” to inflate some bureaucrat’s reputation. We also don’t count false positives - people who had their doors kicked in and their family roughed up and their dog shot in the dead of night - when we’re tallying police effectiveness. Out of sight, out of mind.
The only thing we really see is active shooters on the evening news and burglary footage on the local. So we’re always having a “crime problem”. The current police state is never big enough. Surveillance isn’t “real” enough to impact the news cycle, because something is always happening somewhere that can be reported on as the next big Crime Wave.
They did study this. Surveillance makes a lot of sense for parking lots and around houses if there is immediate intervention. Just recording in the street doesn’t do anything.
Sort of the joke in this. Crime in western countries has declined as police hyper-surveillance has increased
Crime has been on a significant downturn ever since lead was removed from gasoline, and thus stopped being vaporized in the air.
Are there places where crime spikes upward? yes, but almost 100% of the time thats caused by the failure of local, state, or federal governments creating disadvantaged, poor, underserviced people. . and you treat people poorly and keep them desperate long enough, then crime is going to occur.
They’ll happily spend millions on the crime part, but they wont even acknowledge the underlying issue that could be addressed for far less than what oppression costs.
Joke aside, every time there were actual review of laws pushed to protect [insert whatever potential victim] from [insert whatever potential threat] at the cost of losing a tiiiiiny bit of freedom, the conclusion is always dire for the said bill/law/mechanism. All countries.
It is never ever about protecting the people.
Yea, seems a bit like survivorship bias. Do I believe this person would’ve done something horrible? No, then again, I don’t know them… But do we hear about every angsty teenager who has gotten reported through something like this? No. Why don’t they flaunt how much they may or may not stop violence? Because you can’t really brag about data that is intirely comprised of “maybe this could possibly have happened i guess”.
Hey you’re fucking up the cherished narrative here.
someone venting about a stressful day
It’s not that I think teachers shouldn’t vent about stress. But in this day and age, a teacher who has the poor judgment to vent about stress by expressing the desire to shoot a student, in writing, probably doesn’t belong in the classroom to begin with.
Just about every parent I’ve ever met say they want to shoot or kill their kids.
It’s a stupid thing to be sarcastic about in that moment, but no one really thinks we should be taking everyones kids away. (For that reason).
“I’m gonna kill him” is in so many American movies involving kids or someone talking about their spouse.
“I’m gonna strangle em’”. Popular phrase…
None of them should be popular phrases, but they are, lol
So the lesson to the rest of us is DO NOT USE SNAPCHAT especially for private messaging.
I use Signal, was pressed to do so by privacy-minded friends and have pressed other friends to adopt the client.
So long as you don’t accidentally include Jeffrey Goldberg in your chat, you’re okay.
Questions for the ridiculous number of people on here who are perfectly willing to give up their right to privacy because you believe it makes schools and other places safer:
Have you read the 50+ page user agreement for your cell phone company? How about the user agreements of every app that has access to your cell phone, your PC mic or apps that have access to your files? Late model cars have microphones too, as do TV remotes. Microsoft has access to everything on your Windows PC. I’d give 100 to 1 odds that 99% of you haven’t read any of those user agreements OR the UA for private chat apps you are using. Likewise are you sure any cloud storage you’re using isn’t scanning your documents for forbidden phrases?
Since you haven’t read every word of each and every user agreement and think it keeps schools safe, you should be just fine with the fact that EVERYTHING you say or write may be available to law enforcement, even if you’re talking to yourself while sitting on the toilet in your home. If you mutter that you’d like to kill someone or burn something misheard as a school building to the ground you are just fine with AI flagging it and the police knocking on your door in an hour, right? You’ll also be just fine with losing your career and your job never being able to find another one, right? Right? After all, other people never know WTF someone dangerous and violent is going to do.
The number of people on here who are perfectly willing to give up all their rights and have their private communications monitored for something that is nothing more than security theater is unbelievable.
Welcome to reality. Snapchat, WhatsApp, Facebook, intsagram, etc. They are not private. Just don’t use them. It’s wild how people are willfully ignorant about this.
This 100%. Everything you write on any of these chats, anything you write in email, anything you exchange digitally can be monitored if it is not end to end encrypted. People are way too ignorant about it. Just because you can’t search your chat history up on Google doesn’t mean you aren’t being tracked, recorded and monitored.
Literally no different than going to someone’s lawn they say is for public speech regardless and then getting arrested for inciting violence.
It’s PUBLIC. If you want privacy then do it via your own means.
Is it legal for a service to be called private when it is programmatically shared with law enforcement?
deleted by creator
take great pleasure in seeing the shit hole your country is and is still becoming. ❤️
That’s a pretty weird thing to take pleasure in, right? Wouldn’t you want the whole world to snap out of it and become better/united?
I’m not offering an opinion on the matter, I’d just like to point out that taking pleasure in one does not exclude the ability to take pleasure in the other.
Fair
deleted by creator
Why is stirring up conflict here beneficial though? I’m intensely critical of the current US government but me and the average American still have more in common with each-other than either of us have with our respective ruling elites in terms of material interest and daily life.
Yes their crowing about being the most democratic country on Earth is a bit silly but that doesn’t mean they deserve to become an outright plutocracy, nobody deserves that. You can object to Washington’s lofty perch in the global pecking order and to Americentrism in general without wishing ill on a whole nationality the vast majority of whom have done nothing to wrong you personally. The only thing I wish for the Americans is for them to fix their backsliding democratic institutions and to adopt a more realistic view of their country’s place in the geopolitical landscape; I don’t doubt these are goals many Americans support at this point.
Can that wait until after I get a bunker with a solid arcade in it?
We have lost more people to gun violence in the last thirty years than every US soldier killed in every war. Death by firearm is now the number one killer of US children. I have personally lost several people I grew up with to gun violence.
Almost 50% of US males have a criminal conviction and minorities have a close to a 30% felony conviction rate. Millions of minority and poor families have been destroyed by the war on drugs. People regularly get convicted of crimes they didn’t do because they are manipulated into plea bargains with the threat of massive time behind bars. The US jails more people per capita than just about any other nation.
The unemployment rate for those under thirty is around 40%. Most working class families are priced out of home ownership and going to get a higher education will often indebt you for decades. You are expected to constantly change careers or you will be quickly left behind with median position length of just under four years. Many Americans have up to ten or more jobs in their lifetime due to instability in our economy.
I raised my family for over twenty years with zero health insurance. Going to the hospital is a financially life ending event with bills easily reaching $10k + for even basic procedures unless it is just a few stitches. Medical bills account for 40% of bankruptcies and half a million people go bankrupt every year from medical debt.
I find it amazing propaganda can manipulate rubes so easily into hating each other. The wealthy have truly won.
deleted by creator
I think we both can agree on what is happening even if we see some things differently. I view the three major fascist leaning states as the US, Russia, and China in that order. While China has done some amazing things there is plenty of valid criticism outside of just western propaganda.
China is great because of the US not despite it. They have made the wealthy more money in a shorter amount of time than any country before it in history working together. China has produced more billionaires than any nation for the third year straight showing zero signs of slowing.
China is currently running cover for the entire industrialized world. If they were really at odds with all the western nations who dog on them then I don’t think they would have cut their oil consumption by almost 5 million barrels a day, thus staving off a collapse of global markets.
American freedom is misnomer and is merely a function of a lot of land spread out that creates a feeling of less government interference which is compounded if you are a privileged white male.
The US government is the universal destroyer of freedom, not the creator of it. I totally agree there are a ton US citizens that are absolutely clueless that they live in the most violent anti-freedom fascist nation in the world.
Speaking of following in the footsteps, this current administration has done several things to come closer to Chinese policy from trying to become more neo-authoritarian to allowing the government a more active role in business. If the current administration succeeds in its current goal the US could become even more of a one-party system than it already is.
How is China fascist?
It meets all the economic and political definitions.
Keep in mind I believe the entire world has descended into fascism thanks to the US. Also fascism for me is a scale, not all or nothing.
The last straw for me was China providing arms to Africa. Their weapons have already ended up on both sides of the conflicts responsible for killing untold civilians. China is now the world’s fourth largest purveyor of arms.
Is China as bad as the US? Not at all, in fact I really appreciate that their imperialism has been limited. Speaking of the two there is no denying that China has helped propel billionaire’s wealth in the US and vice versa. I personally believe the rise of the billionaire class is responsible for the rise in fascism.
I don’t know the ins and outs of the arming of African countrys by China, but I do know that supplying arms to people defending themselves is a good thing actually. If they end up sending arms to Iran, that’s literally a very good thing in the battle against the fascist global hegemon.
Hey, if you want to be an apologist that is on you. I won’t be joining you though.
I am firmly on the side of humanity.
It’s always been a shithole. The good part was the freedom, you used to be able to be exhasperated and complain to your friends. But we decided instead of improving society that some of us would rather give a bunch of facists cameras and microphones and turns out, those facists are the evil kind of facists, not this mythical “only here to protect us” kind.
The good part was the freedom
Except for the slaves, which as you know, are explicitly allowed in the constitution.
-
Slavery is outlawed
-
Except for prisoners
-
Invent a bunch of laws targeting the lower class, those in poverty, and those with substance habits
-
Enforce the laws selectively against those with the least agency and socioeconomic means
-
Make incarceration so dangerous that prisoners feel the need to commit further crimes on the inside to survive
-
Game the system so that if you don’t want someone out, they don’t get out
-
Enjoy your slaves in an emancipated country
You forgot a step, privatize prisons for profits.
Oh snap, the essential step! 🤦
-
Sure, let’s whataboutism the discussion, love that.
I don’t know when it was but realising the American dream was garbage, and I don’t want to travel to the USA was strange.
It wasn’t like a big hit to the face, it was just a slow crumbling of the idea from media.
When you watched friends and saw people in these massive apartments, or huge mcmansions in other shows, it was always something to strive towards, now I actively dislike it. I would hate to live somewhere like that.
There are(were at least, who knows how much longer they will last) some incredible and beautiful places in America, but I also don’t want to risk my life flying there (and it isn’t the planes).
For me at least I feel like it was when the American dream turned from “anyone can do it with hard work and dedication” to “anyone can do it if they exploit others, get lucky, or come from money”.
The dream used to be “work hard and this will be yours” and it seems to have been turned to “work hard and dream about it someday, and maybe you can get close”. And it definitely changed over time. People often forget when the “American dream” came about it wasn’t “get a degree, and be a white collar worker for a chance” like it was with people my age. It was “go to work, wherever, with whatever skill set/background, contribute and you get a piece of the American apple pie”. Over decades though those goal posts have been shifted further and further.
Earning the American dream used to be a given for everyone if you worked hard and contributed, but over time it has devolved with a bunch of extra conditionals of “well that doesn’t count either” until we are left with “the dream exists, but only for a few who can actually get it.”
People these days are turning to betting, day trading, side hustles, and extreme budgeting to even be comfortable in some cases. That’s not how it used to be. You could work any job, minimum wage or not, and the benefits were supposed to be for everyone. That’s not the case anymore, and the American dream has faded along with it
The “american dream” has always had a problematic contradiction. You should work hard. Working hard is good. You should work hard so you don’t have to work anymore. Working sucks and you don’t want to do it. You want to be the guy on a golf course getting money while those hard working people assemble widgets for you.
Well, which is it then?
I always took it as “if you do your best you’ll never be without what you need” but that could still have a lot of broad interpretations
The freedom was always kind of dicey. Sedition act of 1798, for example.
Women also historically had a bad time of it. And the native peoples. Queer folks, too. Religious freedom is hit or miss.
It’s been pretty good for wealthy people, historically. They’ve been pretty free.
If freedom is the ability to complain, lots of countries with stringer regulations have that. They have it but better, even, because they have a much greater ability to stop it going away.
You do realize that Snapchat is a corporation that has nothing to do with the democracy, right? Your comment is more dumb than an American redneck
Oh honey, but it does. Real democracies have real privacy laws because you need the latter to maintain the former.
Everybody, wait till he learns abut Chat Control and that the same ghouls are lobbying for this kind of legislation worldwide. It’s not JUST America, it’s the underlying capitalist machinery that let’s them subjugate the masses everywhere.
We in America aren’t special.
deleted by creator
I’m not downvoting you. I am going to tell you that a lot of the world’s troubles can be laid at the feet of the US hegemon, but that the EU and UK’s recent horniness for privacy violations has nothing to do with the US populace.
I would fight just as hard against it, as I am over here trying to educate and rouse the sleeping voices here in my states.
Lemmy has the chance, the small opportunity, to be a Rally Point for building up our communities. How can you and I do that, today?
deleted by creator
Reading your other comments I can see you’re just a pathetic person incapable of intellectual discourse
deleted by creator
“Hell”… lol… so you’re a religious psychopath too
deleted by creator
I don’t even live in America. You’re wasting your time with someone not even in the US. That’s how fucking stupid you are lmao
That’s the problem though - corporations have too much power and are partly running the country, or at very least assisting political parties and governments. That’s not a sign of democracy
And liberals and leftists still support the narrative about Venezuela elections being unfair and that the US puppets should rule the country and turn it into a neoliberal hellhole. Including the Swedish Nobel price committee for empire advancement. They will never learn.
deleted by creator
Lmao buddy what the fuck are you smoking?
Let’s hear from the unaltered ego
There’s a reason why Donald and his friends in Washington have all of their discussions on Signal.
Also, if you’re not already, just assume every app and device are spying on you.
Marvel at how AI stopped this non-existent threat, while also giving advice on the best way to kill yourself, or get the highest kill score in a mass shooting, or hack into other corporations.
Sure, this tech isn’t ever going to start directly killing people it has determined are a problem, flipping off life support machines, crashing autonomous vehicles, etc.
Man that was a stupid thing to joke about on a service like Snapchat
That’s a stupid thing to say about a child in any context on any platform. Even in jest, keep that shit tucked away in your head.
Yeah can’t wait until you say something in frustration and get hauled away for it. People supporting this bullshit are the only people who deserve to have it happen to them, and as long as we’re going down the fascism hellslide anyway I’m gonna take some satisfaction in seeing the people who supported the Leopards come to the horrific realization about exactly whose faces were on the menu.
I’m in support of making sure my kids are safe. When someone says something like this, even in frustration, I don’t know if they intend to act on it. I’d rather everyone be safe.
It was absolutely stupid of this teacher to fuck up like this.
But I’d rather the police show up and check on her than have yet another school of bloodied, dead kids.
But you do you.
Oh quit with the haughty hypocritical bullshit. There is no way you have gone your entire life without venting or joking about committing an act of violence against someone or some evil company. Maybe we shouldn’t crucify people for ordinary human behavior. Morbid humor is just part of human communication. If you actually have never done so, I would think there’s something deeply psychologically wrong with you. Like you’re obsessed with appearances and carefully choose every single word to control your public image to the most minute degree.
It’s okay, you do t have to agree with me.
I’d rather everyone be safe.
Everyone except anyone who’s made a joke you personally find distasteful, apparently.
When the thought police come for you, I hope no one lifts a finger.
Jokes are funny.
This, wasn’t a joke. Maybe it was frustration. But it wasn’t a joke.
Funny is subjective.
This was a joke, and so is your bullshit attempt to justify punishing thoughtcrime.
Only thing less “funny” than this “joke” is the fact that people like you think it’s okay.
There is NO context in which this would be “funny”.
Safe from what? A joke?
But I’d rather the police show up and check on her than have yet another school of bloodied, dead kids.
Has there been any case like this? Or are you just pulling something out of nothing?
So there has to be a case like this for you to think hmmm maybe we should be cautious?
Wow.
well you better watch out for the boogieman
Yawn
Fuck off. Like you’ve never said you want to throttle someone without ever actually wanting to.
I have not. That’s just fucking weird. And violent. And that is NOT what was said here. So don’t move the goal post. The teacher specifically said “shoot”. Who the fuck even jokes about shooting someone!? That’s sick.
When someone says something like this, even in frustration,
All teachers have vented in a way that you would probably find disturbing.
The same way people in the medical profession make dark jokes. Sometimes people vent like this to cope.
Now, putting it in text shows a shocking lack of judgment.
The duality of AI…one stops nonexistent threats another one happily puts you into danger
That this is technologically possible at all should terrify you.
It’s been technologically possible for well over 80 years…
Uh what
Edit I don’t feelike getting embroiled in the argument below so ill just note that eavesdropping by intelligence agencies is distinctly different from automated escalation by a private company to local law enforcement.
The US government has been spying on “private” communications for a looooooooooong time. Idk if “well over 80 years” is accurate, but sometime around mid last century for sure.
Almost 110 years minimum (at least for the British), 1917
Maybe not over 80 years if only due to the lack of technology (it would have taken a lot of agents manning a lot of switchboards to listen in on every telephone conversation), but saying “at least since the late 60s” wouldn’t be inaccurate at all
WW2 started over 80 years ago. And they had the technology to spy on electronic communication then.
100% true, though in the same vein as I said; it would take a lot of agents personally listening in to cover the sheer volume of phonecalls and radio transmissions that occurred over just the US, let alone the level of granularity they have with today’s “every message on every service goes through a datacenter server and is analysed in realtime” mode of surveillance that leads to things like this teacher being raided for a snapchat message faster than the cops responded to Uvalde.
Telegrams between North America and Europe ran over a single pathway, which ran through England. The British tapped that cable and were spying on German (and everyone else’s) communications sent through them, which is why Germany had to encode their messages to Mexico asking them to join in WW1 to get Texas back.
You don’t know they spied on electronic communication during WW2? That’s why it’s called wire-tap… you’d literally tap into the wire and read the signal
Go back another 20ish years and we were still tapping electronic comms, the Zimmerman Telegram was WW1
Not quite the same thing, because back then, each wire had to be listened to by a human being in order to see if there was anything actionable passing along it, making surveillance a scarce resource that had to be deployed selectively. Now we have machines listening for keywords on all communications passing through a system, and the resource is no longer scarce: they can listen to everyone, and do.
Unfortunately, people’s expectations are still stuck in the phone-tap era.
Exactly, but somehow that’s exactly the same as 80 years ago…
In this case, it’s just a filter of trigger words and phrases that flag certain messages.
Something we’ve been able to do since at least 1971 if someone wanted to. So it’s not that new either.
We’ve “always” been capable of it. But yes. It is sobering to see that a company now actively does it.
Uh…huh…
