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