1/ I do want a bright line: I think no protection is right, but if they want to protect should always protect. But mosaic theory rejects
-
-
2/ always protect rule: Mosaic proponents say protect sometimes, but don't protect other times, & refuse to say how to distinguish them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
3/ & you have no REP in public. Only have REP in places protected by an REP, like houses, cars, letters, closed packages, etc.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ok. I will play. Mosaic is when sufficient data collected to allow reasonable inference of fact that could not be determined by single /1
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RosenzweigP @OrinKerr and
Of observation. Technology dependendent but factually determinable. Grey areas in middle but... /2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RosenzweigP @OrinKerr and
Clear lines at the ends. Independent of sensor type. /3 =30=
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RosenzweigP @OrinKerr and
See, you're headed in same direction I am. I'd add retention limits and increased probable cause for correlated data.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @RosenzweigP @OrinKerr and
We should. Orin thinks no one has ideas how to do this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @RosenzweigP and
I look forward to your proposals. It's been only 5 years with no one providing answers, so now is a good time for them. :)
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, I wrote something extensive in 2014 (but didn't publish it among all my other big battles on USAF).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
