NY Times’ Hypocritical Internet Hall Monitors Now Want ‘Digital Privacy’ for Abortion

The front page of the newspaper features hypocrisy New York Times Business section Friday, with Natasha Singer and Brian Chen reporting on our scary new world where abortion laws are left to the states: “In a Post-Roe World, the Future of Digital Privacy Looks Even Grimmer.”

Welcome to the post-Roe era of digital privacy, a moment that underscores how the use of technology has made it practically impossible for Americans to evade ubiquitous tracking.

Some women who want to end a pregnancy in states with abortion bans might take several steps to get around surveillance. They may use burner email addresses or connect to the internet via encrypted tunnels to reduce their chances of being prosecuted.

Even so, they could still be tracked. For detailed information such as location data, which is logged via phone networks by law enforcement agencies, courts can issue orders to them. Many police agencies also own their surveillance technologies like license plate reader.

Nonsensical pro-abortion sentiments aside Times is putting its hypocrisy over “digital privacy” on full display. It’s because when it comes down to fighting right-wing misinformation Times Reporters are keen to be the gatekeepers of online discussion and ignore privacy concerns.

Singer and Chen warn:

….the state of digital privacy is already so far gone that forgoing the use of digital tools altogether may be the only way to keep information secure, security researchers said. The persistent tracking capabilities of wireless carriers can be evaded by leaving your mobile phone at home. Cash is preferred for payments of prescription drugs or health services. Public transportation such as a bus, train or subway would be discreeter than ride-hailing app.

Reproductive privacy has become so fraught that government officials and lawmakers are rushing to introduce new policies and bills to safeguard Americans’ data.

The article recommended virtual private networks and encrypted messaging “to combat surveillance, including the chat services WhatsApp and Signal. This is all for something that no state wants to do.

Which is very strange, because Chen contributed to a Q&A article with Kevin Roose in February 2021 that smeared Signal as part of the problem: “Are Telegram and Signal the Next Misinformation Hot Spots?”

Showing a complete disregard for fears of law enforcement using the internet to surveil abortion-seekers, tech reporter Kevin Roose in 2021 warned of the danger of letting people talk where law enforcement and reporters couldn’t listen in:

So there’s now this debate about whether it’s good that all these unsavory characters from the dregs of the internet are disappearing from big social platforms, or whether it’s dangerous to have them congregating in spaces where researchers, journalists and law enforcement can’t keep tabs on them as easily.

Taylor Lorenz, the former crybully TimesReporter who is currently the Washington Post’s problem, also waged a strange war on internet privacy during her time with the paper, shown by her obsession with eavesdropping on Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen in his talks on Clubhouse, falsely claiming Andreessen used “the r-slur” during a virtual meeting. 

About Post Author

Follow Us