this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
103 points (95.6% liked)
Privacy
5065 readers
433 users here now
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
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
Articles are getting too redundant thanks to what I'd bet is AI. Not even sure if this one is reading past a couple sentences, which basically repeat what other people have said but slower.
You'd be better off reading this tweet that the author referenced but failed to link.
Here's a glance at how poor the writing is. Compare this section
To this section:
It's the same thing, said slowly, and said twice. For no reason.
the additional problem is that if someone you message with enables it, then your messages (to that person) are uploaded as well
Somebody in a state that isn’t single-party consent sue over this, I’d be really interested in seeing how far that could go.
I'm not aware of any state that applies two party consent rules to written communications. As far as I can tell, state wiretap laws only apply to in-person or live voice conversations (like traditional phone calls).
Oregon, for example, is a two party consent state for phone calls but single party consent for electronic communications. Same with Illinois.
Connecticut and Montana don't apply two party rules when the non-recording parties are merely aware that recording is happening, and it seems like a pretty straightforward analysis that everyone knows that the other side keeps text messages on their phone, usually indefinitely.
The nature of email, text messaging, or any other kind of written communication basically makes it impossible to expect the other side not to save a record of the conversation, because that's just how the technology generally works.
I was curious if it would but it’s the stored communications act instead, which frankly seems a much better case anyways. Theoretically two party consent could maybe cover it, but the law is old and we have others that cover electronic communications anyways.
The federal Stored Communications Act is essentially one party consent. It primarily restricts the ability of a service provider (who isn't a party to those communications) to share things with law enforcement or with others, and governs the manner in which governments can compel disclosure of information about communications. None of it restricts an actual party to the communication, though.