Timeline for PRISM could read metadata showing JP Morgan had busy Whatsapp chats during business hours? [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49 secs ago | comment | added | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | @schroeder I appreciate you quoting the parts that I was trying for, security.stackexchange.com/questions/258249/… is the best option then? Rollback to version 4? security.stackexchange.com/revisions/258249/4 feels terrible to me but might suffice? | |
| 2 mins ago | history | rollback | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context |
Rollback to Revision 4
|
|
| 2 mins ago | comment | added | schroeder♦ | You are trying to play with semantics when the substance is unchanged. Sprinkling "technically" in your text changes nothing. The SEC defines its own rules. Anti-trust issues are not security concerns. Responsibility between government departments is not a security concern. | |
| 3 mins ago | comment | added | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | @Rory Oh and security.stackexchange.com/revisions/258249/4 is a rather cutting version (I rollback'ed, though, you can rollback again), if that helps to save if nothing else helps. I would prefer the "technical perspective" details included but giving that other edit option as a possible way forward. | |
| 8 mins ago | comment | added | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | @RoryAlsop security.stackexchange.com/questions/155516/… clearly & repeatedly cites mainly legal isses in their content, so now burrowing that authors clever usage of the phrase "From a technical perspective," to help the same way. Explained I was somewhat metaphorically speaking for the parent part, with the focus on who controls the technology. | |
| 10 mins ago | history | edited | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/155516/can-a-government-intelligence-agency-see-who-i-am-messaging-on-whatsapp clearly & repeatedly cites mainly legal isses in their content, so now burrowing that authors clever usage of the phrase "From a technical perspective," to help the same way.
Added to review
|
| 19 mins ago | history | rollback | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context |
Rollback to Revision 3
|
|
| 19 mins ago | history | edited | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I feel like I had to get rid of all the Search Engine Optimised writing I did, but editing now maybe that sounds clearer and just focuses on the technical aspects, even though other infosec/security questions like clearly cite mainly legal isses in their content.
|
| 47 mins ago | history | left closed in review | Rory Alsop♦ | Original close reason(s) were not resolved | |
| 47 mins ago | comment | added | Rory Alsop♦ | Your post has multiple questions, none of which are even close to being on topic here on Security.SE. This site is not for "how did organisation X not do Y?" or "Why is this allowed?" etc | |
| 2 hours ago | comment | added | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context |
@schroeder Added PRISM could read JP Morgan had busy Whatsapp chats during business hours?, to make sure it's read as an explicitly technical question. (I think I thought that metadata part was implicit in this technical security section..)
|
|
| S 2 hours ago | review | Reopen votes | |||
| 47 mins ago | |||||
| S 2 hours ago | history | edited | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Adding `PRISM could read JP Morgan had busy Whatsapp chats during business hours?`, to make sure it's read as a technical question.
Added to review
|
| 2 hours ago | comment | added | schroeder♦ | I'm saying that you are asking legal questions, but what you've asked will likely not be accepted at Law.StackExchange as it is too open-ended. | |
| 3 hours ago | comment | added | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | @schroeder Please forgive me for asking then, but if it's not a tecnical/security/legal question, then what is it? Is it possibe my wording could be changed? | |
| 3 hours ago | comment | added | schroeder♦ | No, it's not your phrasing it's the content of the questions. And, no, you are not asking technical or even security questions, | |
| 3 hours ago | comment | added | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | @schroeder I want a technical answer and it is a technical question, I come from a legal family that is how I sound all the time not just here. | |
| 3 hours ago | comment | added | schroeder♦ | Because that is ultimately a technical question and the answer is technical. You are asking broad, open-ended questions that are more about the legal aspects. | |
| 3 hours ago | comment | added | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | @schroeder How is security.stackexchange.com/questions/155516/… allowed then? Is it my wording? | |
| 3 hours ago | comment | added | schroeder♦ | This is unanswerable on an information security site. It's open-ended, opinion-based, and more about the law than about security. This would be more ontopic on Law StackExchange, but I don't think it meets their requirements. | |
| 3 hours ago | history | closed | schroeder♦ | Not suitable for this site | |
| 3 hours ago | history | edited | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Missing part.
|
| S 3 hours ago | review | First questions | |||
| 3 hours ago | |||||
| S 3 hours ago | history | asked | prosody-Gabe Vereable Context | CC BY-SA 4.0 |