3 ms·

> Search is a specific term with specific meaning The legal system does not have a monopoly on defining words or being a source of truth. And it is obvious tha

> Search is a specific term with specific meaning The legal system does not have a monopoly on defining words or being a source of truth. And it is obvious that the legal system's reasoning lines up with the action in this case - otherwise the action wouldn't have happened! If you were merely clumsily making a point about positive behavior (vs normative behavior), that might be understandable. But then we get: > It's not a legitimate concern You are trying to define away discussion about normative behavior by insisting on the legal system's definitions, as if the legal system's definitions and laws cannot be changed. Either because you think it's an easy way to win the argument, or because the legal definitions have warped your brain so badly that you cannot think outside of that box. Either way, sorry - there are valid concerns here. Putting the way I see it in legal terminology: the relationship between a user and a data storage provider should be much closer to that of a trustor/trustee than the current "anything goes" regime. Legally demanding a user's data, and especially the retention of a user's data, from/by a centralized service should require some indication that the specific user is doing something illegal themselves - not merely that the hosting provider in aggregate might be. They are not "business records", but rather personal records being entrusted to the custody of a business. Specifically in this case, it should mean that in order to access saved chats and demand retention of deleted chats, the NYT (et al) should have to point to specific users they think may be infringing upon their copyrights, not merely launching a fishing expedition against all users. And once again, since you seem to have a problem keeping this separate - I'm obviously talking about how things ought to be, not how the current laws shake out.

freejazz 1y ago
>The legal system does not have a monopoly on defining words or being a source of truth. And it is obvious that the legal system's reasoning lines up with the action in this case - otherwise the action wouldn't have happened! If you were merely clumsily making a point about positive behavior (vs normative behavior), that might be understandable. But then we get: It doesn't. But if you are going to discuss it, you should be discussing the actual thing, not the other thing which is irrelevant. It's no different than in programming. If were discussing programming arrays and you kept butting into the conversation about how arrays can mean other things in english, it would behoove no one. >You are trying to define away discussion about normative behavior by insisting on the legal system's definitions, as if the legal system's definitions and laws cannot be changed. Either because you think it's an easy way to win the argument, or because the legal definitions have warped your brain so badly that you cannot think outside of that box. Either way, sorry - there are valid concerns here. I'm not defining anything away. I did not come up with the legal definition for search in the context of the 4th amendment. That's on over 100 years of jurisprudence, not me. > Putting the way I see it in legal terminology: Of no use to anyone at all. If we're describing programming, mathematics, any science... it's not relevant what my own definitions, or the other definitions not applicable to the context. >And once again, since you seem to have a problem keeping this separate - I'm obviously talking about how things ought to be, not how the current laws shake out. So? A search is still a search in legal terms if we are discussing what the 4th amendment protects. You can either join the discussion we were having, or not. It's your choice. I'm not stopping you from doing anything, all I did was point out that your contribution was so far off from being cognizable in this context that it is doing everyone a disservice. You're clearly intelligent and capable of talking about these things accurately, you just chose not to.

freejazz 1y ago

>The legal system does not have a monopoly on defining words or being a source of truth. And it is obvious that the legal system's reasoning lines up with the action in this case - otherwise the action wouldn't have happened! If you were merely clumsily making a point about positive behavior (vs normative behavior), that might be understandable. But then we get: It doesn't. But if you are going to discuss it, you should be discussing the actual thing, not the other thing which is irrelevant. It's no different than in programming. If were discussing programming arrays and you kept butting into the conversation about how arrays can mean other things in english, it would behoove no one. >You are trying to define away discussion about normative behavior by insisting on the legal system's definitions, as if the legal system's definitions and laws cannot be changed. Either because you think it's an easy way to win the argument, or because the legal definitions have warped your brain so badly that you cannot think outside of that box. Either way, sorry - there are valid concerns here. I'm not defining anything away. I did not come up with the legal definition for search in the context of the 4th amendment. That's on over 100 years of jurisprudence, not me. > Putting the way I see it in legal terminology: Of no use to anyone at all. If we're describing programming, mathematics, any science... it's not relevant what my own definitions, or the other definitions not applicable to the context. >And once again, since you seem to have a problem keeping this separate - I'm obviously talking about how things ought to be, not how the current laws shake out. So? A search is still a search in legal terms if we are discussing what the 4th amendment protects. You can either join the discussion we were having, or not. It's your choice. I'm not stopping you from doing anything, all I did was point out that your contribution was so far off from being cognizable in this context that it is doing everyone a disservice. You're clearly intelligent and capable of talking about these things accurately, you just chose not to.