If you’re saying that readers should be aware of all information that is contained on any linked page
I’m saying you shouldn’t be surprised that not every detail of everything that’s ever happened is in one document. They wrote EXACTLY what the situation was in a previous article and then saw fit to not have to rehash the entire thing in a subsequent post. This happens all the time in news reports.
you should find EULAs and T&C pages unobjectionable
I do, they’re perfectly fine and serve a logical legal and practical web design need. I hate when I have to wade through T&Cs on the front page when I know that any site is sure as hell gonna have one anyway.
By the same token, I could say that you’re the only one claiming that the BB-linked piece was perfectly clear and non-misleading.
No you couldn’t. My commentary is in reply to you and the fact that you’re the ONLY one who’s raised any of this likely means that you’re the only person who is confused. Well, you and Crovitz. Boing Boing points us to interesting things, there’s no expectation that every detail of every post be articulated.
If it doesn’t matter how far the WSJ figure is off, then why does the EFF article quote it, why does it pretend to rebut it, and why does it care at all?
They are rebutting his suggestion that only legitimate terrorism targets are being spied upon and nothing to do with his figures. The EFF doesn’t pretend to rebut that: THEY REBUT IT BY SHOWING THAT EVEN A FEDERAL COURT BELIEVES THE NSA TO BE OVERSTEPPING THEIR OWN RULES TENFOLD. How much clearer can I make it?
You are right on when the court opinion is from (yay! that’s something). They were released in September. There is a massive difference between data from 2006 that have been proven to be incorrect and data from 2009 which is, to the limits of our knowledge, still accurate.
I’m finished here man… You’re boring the others with your painful insistence.
