world

Google urged to stop location tracking to protect privacy of abortion seekers

28 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


28 Comments
Login to comment

So we need to protect the abortion seekers and not the lost innocent lives. I see.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

what a "human" request...

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Location tracking big brother = communism

Banning (or forcing abortion) = communism

Freedom forever!

1 ( +7 / -6 )

This world is getting sadder by the minute.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Can they do the same for Supreme Court justices to protect them from angry Pro-abortionists out where they live?

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

America counts freedom as one of the most important thing.

Yes restricts freedom to males. Females are free to do what they're told.

If someone you don't know what's an abortion, it's not something that you get to have a choice in.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

"If abortion is made illegal by the far-right Supreme Court and Republican lawmakers, it is inevitable that right-wing prosecutors will obtain legal warrants to hunt down, prosecute and jail women for obtaining critical reproductive health care," the letter said.

Left-wing prosecutors who swear to uphold the laws of the state wouldn't prosecute women breaking the law?

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

So we need to protect the abortion seekers and not the lost innocent lives. I see.

Left-wing prosecutors who swear to uphold the laws of the state wouldn't prosecute women breaking the law?

Gave absolutely zero thought to rape and incest victims huh?

Oh, and they'll probably need government assistance too right?

Then the "MY TAX DOLLARS" rants.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

...except that is not what is happening. The Supremes at worst are going to throw the issue back to the states- as they should in this kind of situation. And the states can each make their own laws. Some will be very liberal, some more restrictive.

Polling does show that most Americans favor "some" access to abortion. But that support fades after the first trimester and even more after the second. So a logical place to start would be allowing abortions, particularly chemically induced, up to 14 weeks. Then restrict them to only if the mother's life is in danger. Seems reasonable to me.

The rest is all paranoia and pre-election scare tactics.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

They want to protect privacy but don't care at all about protecting life, human rights, or justice.

Killing a child that has already been produced, is not "reproductive healthcare". It cures nothing.

Banning ripping a child's limbs off is not "controlling women's bodies". The woman's body isn't the one being intentionally destroyed until death.

Non-medically-necessary abortion is the intentional murder of a healthy baby in a healthy woman, for reasons that include being the "wrong" sex, the mother being threatened, or financial difficulties. Rather than help these mothers and their babies, these people offer only the option of killing what may even be wanted babies. In this type of abortion, death is the goal. The baby is killed before delivery and left to die if he or she managed to survive.

Medically necessary abortion is an early birth of a live and wanted baby due to medical issues with the mother or baby, and the baby is given healthcare to save him or her if possible. That has never been a target of anti-abortion legislation.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

So we need to protect the abortion seekers and not the lost innocent lives. I see.

You got it 100% wrong! We have the duty to protect women's right to choose!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

oh keep tracking everyone else, but please protect the privacy of abortion seekers ONLY?

seriously?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Some of the same religious wackos,do nothing for their own children,cannot provide their children,with basic emotional support,but all this dribble drabble

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I dunno why everyone thinks the abortion debate is so difficult. The solution to unwanted pregnancies is simple:

Mandatory universal vasectomies.

If you’re a boy, when you hit puberty, you have to go to your doctor to get snipped. It’s safe, easy, can be done in a day, and you’ll never have to worry about babies being aborted, cuz as we all know, 100% of unwanted pregnancies involve a man. So stop them at the source.

Then, when you’re a responsible adult and you want to have children, you can apply for an appointment at the one, government-approved vasectomy-reversal center in your state and in 6-18 months, you can get your vasectomy reversed and have kids. It’s a foolproof way to prevent abortions.

I just can’t understand how the pro-life crowd hasn’t proposed this yet. Any Pro-lifers in the comment section able to fill me in on how/why you could possibly miss the easiest possible solution? After all, it’s about saving babies and definitely not about controlling women’s bodies exclusively, right?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Let's drop the silly 'pro life' moniker, they're anti-choice.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

StrangerlandToday  12:34 am JST

Let's drop the silly 'pro life' moniker, they're anti-choice.

No, they want people to have a choice who to vote for. That is the US system of democracy.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

No, they want people to have a choice who to vote for. That is the US system of democracy.

Heh, nice "my body my right and don't you dare tell me to take a vaccine, but don't you dare abort" logic mate. Seems legit.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Just give people the right to turn it off and delete Google's record of it, if they need to.

Others may have a use for it and want to retain it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Just give people the right to turn it off and delete Google's record of it, if they need to.

You do have that right, and I do it myself. It takes some research, some choices in software, and altering your habits to do so however, and isn't realistic for most people.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

StrangerlandToday  02:25 am JST

Heh, nice "my body my right and don't you dare tell me to take a vaccine, but don't you dare abort" logic mate. Seems legit.

If you understood US history you would understand the significance of Roe v. Wade, which stood about 40 years, and then you would not make the leap in logic in trying to link that outcome and its rationale with the contemporary vaccine issue.

For starters, abortion used to be illegal in many states.

It was never illegal to be inoculated with the Covid vaccine.

See how far off base is your attempt to the link the two?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

For starters, abortion used to be illegal in many states.

It was never illegal to be inoculated with the Covid vaccine.

See how far off base is your attempt to the link the two?

He's linking the two SARCASTICALLY. He doesn't actually believe they are equivalent issues. HOWEVER, he is using that sarcasm to point out the hypocrisy displayed by many on the Right, who demand full bodily autonomy when it comes to having to get a vaccine, but then in the same breath wish to remove a woman's bodily autonomy in relation to abortions.

For the record, the issues are NOT the same. The reason bodily autonomy can be legally curbed (This issue was decided by the Supreme Court over a century ago in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)) in the case of mandatory vaccination is because, unlike abortions, infectious diseases are contagious and can infect and harm other people without their consent. Abortion, as you might have guessed, is not at all contagious, therefore a woman's right to bodily autonomy is held to be superior. Mandatory vaccination, however, holds that the right to safety of the general public is superior to the bodily autonomy of the individual during a public health crisis.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Apple does the same

But they don't sell off that data, nor do they use it for advertising, targeted or otherwise. They use it for the apps on your phone to function. So it's not exactly equivalent.

indeed all Telecoms Companies do so too- how do you think your phone works ?

Sure, that's like saying "all people use the internet". Some of them use it for good, some use it for bad.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There are settings to disable location tracking in all versions of Android. Whether google honors those settings or not is a completely different question. If lawmakers want something to end, they they need to make a law.

Apple has been caught doing things they claimed they wouldn't do as well.

When it comes to having humans control which data can be shared for how long, we need laws that mandate, clear, approval with mandated payments to the individual, and default to denial.

For example, I'm inclined to allow location data sharing for 2 days, but not more. I'd want it wiped.

Each of our govts should also be prevented from buying data that would otherwise require a search warrant to access. No legal search warrant, no fishing expeditions allowed by local, state/Provence or federal govts. The days of slurping all the data on FB, Tweeter, Google, without warrants needs to end.

If the SCOTUS decides to overturn Roe, then that's the law of the land and Google should be supporting it inside the USA. Personally, I think that's the wrong court decision, but that's the system. We have a way to change it, if that is the will of the people.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

We have a way to change it, if that is the will of the people.

Considering between 61-70% of all Americans (depending on the pollsters) support Roe v Wade and believe a woman should be able to get an abortion "in all or most cases", I think it's safe to say overturning Roe v Wade would fly in the face of the will of the people.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think it's safe to say overturning Roe v Wade would fly in the face of the will of the people.

The anti-abortionists have convinced the court that life begins before birth and the US Constitution is there to protect the minority and people who cannot protect themselves.

Popularity polls don't matter, until the laws are changed. Most pro-abortion laws will be struck down by the current SCOTUS.

My agreement with on-demand abortion, for any reason, means little to people who believe that when a sperm fertilizes an egg, it is now a life to be protected with the full protection that a 1 yr old baby certainly deserves.

I think those people are wrong. Until the child can be sustained outside the mother, I don't want to say it deserves the same protections, especially if the mother doesn't want to raise it. Forced birth and the rights of the mother to control her body and medical treatments need to take priority.

Alas, we all have different morality on this issue. I can listen and understand all sides of this issue. I can understand why different people come to different answers with exactly the same facts provided too.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

means little to people who believe that when a sperm fertilizes an egg, it is now a life to be protected with the full protection that a 1 yr old baby certainly deserves.

Considering how little the Republicans seem to care about grade-schoolers getting killed in their classrooms, I think it’s safe to say they only consider it a life to be protected UNTIL it is born.

After that, you’re on your own. Better stock up on toddler-sized ballistic plates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Police have the authority to find the nearest connection antenna that your phone was connected to... but, that's about it.

This isn't true in the US.

Since the early 2000s, all phones in the US have GPS built-in and if 911 is called, the GPS information is included in the calling data. It was deemed that calling 911 is a request for emergency help, so providing GPS coordinates isn't a violation.

Police cannot get legal access to cell tower data without either

a) a warrant, signed by a judge,

or

b) an affidavit signed by the interested officer that says someone is in immediate danger.

Getting data any other way is generally illegal, according to court rulings.

There are "fence warrants" that law enforcement has been using more and more, which can be used to ask Google or Apple to use their knowledge of GPS for a specific location for a specific time. Those have to be signed by a judge and have limitations on both the location and the time. If you go to a protest, leave your personal tracking device at home or have a Faraday pouch which blocks all cell, wifi, Bluetooth, signals. They are relatively cheep ($10) and actually do work.

Of course, there are illegal ways that law enforcement gets location data for phones and they've been caught doing that, which almost always gets that data and any data gathered due to the location data thrown out of the case. The NSA is famous for gathering data on everyone, everywhere. It is illegal for them to have data on US residents. They've interpreted that to mean they cannot look at the data, but they can have it and the courts haven't ruled against the NSA over that. There is a requirement for "standing" in the US courts. People without "standing" cannot sue even if something illegal happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) Part of "standing" is that harm must have occurred. So, I feel harmed by the NSA having information on me, but because I cannot prove any harm has come from that data, I have no standing to sue. The fact that the OPM leaked my data (likely 30 page worth) and that the CCP-Chinese has it, doesn't provide standing to me either, because I cannot prove that leaked data has harmed me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites