[OtherShrezzing]

>2023: ~12,183 arrests

These numbers are for _all_ arrests under the Malicious Communications Act in that year. So while that category includes arrests for tweets, it also includes all arrests for any offensive communications via an internet-enabled device. So it'd include arrests for domestic abuse where at least one component of the abuse was through WhatsApp. Similarly, it can include just about any arrest where the crime was planned on an internet enabled device.

[Havoc]

We’re the rules changed are this between those years though?

Cause if not a more than doubling is alarming regardless of how exactly the composition is sliced by online vs WhatsApp or whatever.

[fn-mote]

Sure, but it’s pretty hard to believe that the domestic violence arrests are increasing exponentially, isn’t it?

ETA:

> So it'd include arrests for domestic abuse where at least one component of the abuse was through WhatsApp.

Are you absolutely sure of this? It sounded good on the first read, but I’m very skeptical now. It seems to me that the arrest is going to be for battery, even if the charges filed later include the WhatsApp messages.

[OtherShrezzing]

In the uk, during interview, you can only be questioned for offences you’ve been arrested for. So it’s common to get over-arrested, and later charged with the serious crime rather than the minor ones.

The overwhelming majority of people arrested under the communications act aren’t charged under it. They’re either released, or charged under a more serious offence.

[drnick1]

The point is, communications should not be surveilled at all by the state. It shouldn't matter that the Internet is sometimes used to commit crimes, the bigger issue is that the vast majority of non-criminal traffic is subject to snooping.

[squidbeak]

What proof do you have that this is the result of surveillance rather than from responses to complaints?

[drnick1]

I don't have proof, but systems are certainly designed to make this possible. And since it's possible, it is safe to assume that it is happening. (The Snowden leaks corroborate massive information sharing between "Big Tech" and the U.S. government, for example.) Hence you should categorically refuse to use anything Meta (that includes, among others, Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp), or Google, or Microsoft.

[TrackerFF]

Do we know that was the case, for in those instances?

Could be that some guy threatened to kill someone over FB, someone saw that, and reported it.

[jimnotgym]

Were they surveilled? Or simply read on someone's device after they were lawfully arrested, or sent to the police by the victim? You seem to be making a bit of a jump there

[simonjgreen]

I’m not sure why you are being downvoted, this is a critically important point. Context is king, numbers alone are unhelpful