Does Wyden not know about English grammar? You ask if you can: Yes, I can, but would I? That's a different question. Can does not imply action. It only states if the possibility exists to for action.
"Would" and "could/can" mean two different things. Wyden clearly stated "Can" not "Would."
Coats stated they cannot, show him the text clearly states they cannot. Nowhere, in either statements, did "would" ever come up.
i.e. Is he's asking if there are any legal loop holes in the text?
It just seems pretty obvious the answer would be "no": The text of the law says the government "may not intentionally" - that's a very obvious answer "No, the government cannot use 702 to intentionally collect[...]"
So, is he really asking if there's anyway the government can interpret 702 differently to allow it?
This is why people get frustrated in government. People answer to the text. And people get pissed off: "That's what what I meant"
Yes, I get there's a lot of shit the other way, too: they answer to the "text" without answer the question. However, in this instance, Wyden's intended meaning of the question is clearly--based on Coats's reply--not obvious.
"Can the government use FISA Act Section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic."
"Not to my knowledge. It would be against the law." [...] "Section 702(b)(4) plainly states we 'may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.'"
I don't get it. That answers the question to the T. Wyden said Can. He did not say Has or Would.
What am I missing here? Does Wyden not know about English grammar? You ask if you can: Yes, I can, but would I? That's a different question. Can does not imply action. It only states if the possibility exists to for action.
Oh? Well then. Let me look at this even more. I just xfered one of my domains here last week to Google Domains, because of email forwarding (to my gmail account).
I'm tempted, but I need email forwarding. I was about to move my domain to Google Domain so I can kill my mail server. It doesn't appear Namecheap offers email forwarding. :(
"In the end, we stand by our initial analysis: almost all of the complaints against Instagram's new terms of service were quite similar to complaints made against other terms of service in the past few years when someone got around to reading the details, which are hard to understand because of the annoying legalese that the lawyers want you to put in. "
That's not entirely true. In this instance, the wording of the TOS (new, mind you, not existing), did give the impression they would sell your photos to advertisers. So the concern was very real. Instagram just farked up their meaning when putting it down in legal mumbo-jumbo.
While your interpretation as what they were trying to do is correct, the complaints over the language was quite valid.
Re-release on Viamo? How about embedding on his site using HTML5? Have other users host the video in their channels? Put it on PirateBay for others to pull down and post to their discretion?
There are many ways to get the video air play. While this is a obvious display of censorship, it's very, very easy to "play around" Finesse's "commercial use" claim. Dan Bull can easily "fight back" without falling under the terms of the counter-notices.
I'm sure this is a response from Disney being ask by a third party if this was authorized or if Disney is connected with the performance (in efforts to get info. about said woman).
I'm a little disappointed. You make it sound like Disney is threatening Kim John Un for the illegal use of Disney characters. Now, if I'm wrong, and this is a real legal threat; then yes, Disney is jumping the "MUCH PROTECT IP" gun before realizing China doesn't care about US IP.
He should be using the analogy of making phones illegal because people use them to conduct illegal activity. Can even use the postal service as illegal because people use it to ship illegal packages.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Am I missing something?
However, in this contact of his question, 'Can' would mean: "Can the government", in which Coats stated, the document says the government cannot.
Do note, nowhere in Wyden's question, to the text, did he ask "would/can" Coats's agency, which you implied.
Yes. Text of the sentence. What word used matters so much, whether you're asking or answering.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Am I missing something?
I touched on that already:
"Would" and "could/can" mean two different things. Wyden clearly stated "Can" not "Would."
Coats stated they cannot, show him the text clearly states they cannot. Nowhere, in either statements, did "would" ever come up.
Re: Re: Am I missing something?
i.e. Is he's asking if there are any legal loop holes in the text?
It just seems pretty obvious the answer would be "no": The text of the law says the government "may not intentionally" - that's a very obvious answer "No, the government cannot use 702 to intentionally collect[...]"
So, is he really asking if there's anyway the government can interpret 702 differently to allow it?
This is why people get frustrated in government. People answer to the text. And people get pissed off: "That's what what I meant"
Yes, I get there's a lot of shit the other way, too: they answer to the "text" without answer the question. However, in this instance, Wyden's intended meaning of the question is clearly--based on Coats's reply--not obvious.
Am I missing something?
Can somebody explain this for me?
I don't get it. That answers the question to the T. Wyden said Can. He did not say Has or Would.
What am I missing here? Does Wyden not know about English grammar? You ask if you can: Yes, I can, but would I? That's a different question. Can does not imply action. It only states if the possibility exists to for action.
It's up now
Re: Re: Tempting
Tempting
(untitled comment)
Less game purchases -> more violence?
Re:
(untitled comment)
That's not entirely true. In this instance, the wording of the TOS (new, mind you, not existing), did give the impression they would sell your photos to advertisers. So the concern was very real. Instagram just farked up their meaning when putting it down in legal mumbo-jumbo.
While your interpretation as what they were trying to do is correct, the complaints over the language was quite valid.
Re: Re: Copyright is a grant of limited property rights for limited time.
Re:
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
There are many ways to get the video air play. While this is a obvious display of censorship, it's very, very easy to "play around" Finesse's "commercial use" claim. Dan Bull can easily "fight back" without falling under the terms of the counter-notices.
Re: Typical statement.
Typical statement.
I'm a little disappointed. You make it sound like Disney is threatening Kim John Un for the illegal use of Disney characters. Now, if I'm wrong, and this is a real legal threat; then yes, Disney is jumping the "MUCH PROTECT IP" gun before realizing China doesn't care about US IP.
Use phones.
Both of those would fit well with TPB's use.
Re:
(untitled comment)
You give the TSA far too much credit. lol
More comments from Philip >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Philip.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt