If recording your calls without a playing them back isn't surveillance


Well said.

1 Like

And punching someone in the dark is a victimless crime!


I made almost the exact same point in this thread: https://alpha.app.net/fields/post/7356797

But if you don’t listen to it, does it actually exist?

Well a said. But if you want the permalink to get legs you should correct the typo in the headline. I’d love to see this get legs.

1 Like

Well said? What? if zero = zero then zero?

I think I may have missed a section of my “being persuaded” classes.

1 Like

What-a you-a talkin’ about? Izza lovely headline.


(except contradictions don’t matter when you’re the government)

That’s literally the legal theory that they rely on to justify the dragnet - because a computer isn’t a person, it can’t surveil, it can’t search or seize, and doesn’t require a warrant.

That really needs to change.


Now if only our governments knew shame.


Except that the corollary probably isn’t too palatable:

“If downloading music without listening to it isn’t piracy … then recording your calls without playing them back isn’t surveillance.”

Are you sure you want to sign up to that position?

1 Like

I’m sorry, If-Then statements are only one-way, by default, therefore you can’t, without additional arguments, assume the reverse statement has any merit.

“If you’re my friend Bob’s wife, your name must be Sharon.” does not imply that “If your name is Sharon then you must be my friend Bob’s wife.”

Now, if the phrase was “If and only if recording your calls without a-playing them back isn’t surveillance, then downloading music without listening to it isn’t piracy.” you might have a good point.

Touché and bravo

Even better. Blank Cassette tapes have a portion of their sell go directly to the RIAA.

So if you purchased a blank cassette you paid for the legal right to record any music to that medium—it was yours. To listen too and use. (But not to sell).

So…Download directly to Cassette; nothing says that you can’t DL in digital format to the cassette. At that point you’ve legally ‘owned’ the content as you’ve paid the RIAA fee by purchasing the cassette.

Then upload it from cassette…to you computer MP3 player whatever. like any other content you’ve paid the RIAA fee. for your personal use.


WAT?!? Methinks you’ve taken your logic course yet missed the vocab quiz.

The proper comparison would be as follows:
If birds that are black are not school buses then this bird that is black is not a school bus.

Your view of IFF being required is nonsense.If and only if birds that are black are not school buses then this other bird that is black is not a school bus. But birds that are not black are also not school buses, so the “and only if” portion is nonsensical.

Sorry, your comparison is not correct. You’re assuming your conclusion when you say “Birds that are not black are also not schoolbuses”. In THAT case, it’s a perfectly acceptable conclusion to assume, because we can SEE that. But you can’t generalize to every other case.

In your example, we may accept the proposition that “If birds that are black are not school buses than this other bird that is black is not a school bus” as true. But we’re not yet evaluating the sentence “birds that are black are not school buses”. We’re only evaluating the if-then statement. So when we look at your secondary example, “If this bird that is black is not a school bus, then birds that are black is not a school bus”… that’s not guaranteed by the first if-then statement. Perhaps there’s a black bird that IS a school bus (yes, I know, it seems absurd, but, say we’re talking to an alien who knows nothing about black birds or school buses… we have to PROVE that). The alien might well accept your first if-then (because it is logically true whether you know anything about black birds or school buses), but you haven’t given him any evidence about the second.

“If X then Y” means just that, “if X is true, then Y is true.” It doesn’t mean that if Y is true, X is true. Y can be true without X being true. Sure, there may be values of X and Y for which when Y is true, X is true, but it’s not guaranteed by the first statement. If and only if makes this connection (you may still have to prove the validity of the “if and only if statement” of course, but if you provisionally accept it you can make always deductions about whether X is true based on the state of Y, and vice versa… with an if-then statement you can only make deductions about Y when X is true, and if Y happens to be not true, we can deduce that X is not true, but that’s all, at least not without bringing in outside evidence).

Is there a context to this story or is it just a wayward twitter post?

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.