3 ms·
Except we are actually discussing a technical legal matter. When discussing a technical legal matter, definitions are important. You can say you're upset about
by darawk 7y ago
Except we are actually discussing a technical legal matter. When discussing a technical legal matter, definitions are important. You can say you're upset about metadata collection, but that is a distinct issue from wiretapping. Trying to justify imprecise terminology on the grounds that "people are upset" is simply a tactic for muddying the waters. If your point is good, you can be precise about it.
- darkpuma 7y agoMost of us are not lawyers. If a lawyer is being imprecise with legal terminology, then they need to be called on it promptly. If however a non-lawyer is misusing terminology but their meaning is clear, correcting their terminology is just derailing the conversation. If somebody says "That man assaulted me; he punched me right in the face" the correct response is not "Actually that's battery, not assault" (I don't know [or care] if that 'correction' is true or not, but it's one that's been repeated online ad nauseum.)
- sandworm101 7y agoAlso, lawyers (ie me) are free to speak as private citizens. I could go on at length about the legal distinctiveness of content and non-content interception, but whether it does matter is different than whether it should. I don't see metadata as fundamentally different in practice than content. Scotus may say otherwise, but I am under no obligation to agree with them.
- lern_too_spel 7y agoYou also don't care if the punch was warrantless or not. Here, we are discussing warrantless wiretaps, which has a specific meaning. You don't get to pick and choose which meanings you discard (wiretap) and which meanings you keep (warrantless) because goalposts can be moved forever, and communication becomes impossible.