I read Kripke’s sketches of our ordinary view of meaning in his book Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language as attempts to highlight the features of meaning that enable us to draw the distinction between what seems right and what is right. I argue that Kripke thinks the best way to clarify these features of meaning is to describe metasemantic conditions that a speaker’s words must satisfy if the speaker is to be warranted in asserting a sentence in which the words occur. Although the view of meaning I attribute to Kripke is initially compelling, I argue that it rests on a subtle yet fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between what seems right and what is right.

Argued October 17, 1967.Decided December 18, 1967.

Mr. Justice CAPERS delivered the opinion of the Court.1

We are not precisely told how Charles Katz, the petitioner, came to the FBI’s attention as someone involved in illegal gambling. But clearly by early 1965, the FBI considered the petitioner a person worth keeping an eye on. What we are told is that starting around February 4, 1965, FBI agents began tailing the petitioner, and continued tailing him for about two weeks. Their surveillance of the petitioner, presumably without his knowledge, revealed that the petitioner had a daily habit of making telephone calls from a particular row of telephone booths on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles. Further investigation, presumably through the telephone company, revealed that the petitioner’s calls were placed to a number in Massachusetts, which number the FBI traced to a known gambler. Armed with this information, but lacking a warrant, the FBI secretly placed a recording device on top of the bank of phones the petitioner had been using.

In Chapter 10, I discuss the moral context of research interpretation and reporting. I describe interpretation as the constitution of evidence within an epistemic frame characterized by the totality of (always at least partly moral) commitments underlying analytic choices. These analytic choices include those concerning what is worthy of study, what kinds of methods and forms of evidence are considered acceptable, and what kinds of claims are warrantable. I also emphasize the ways that evidence is not merely gathered nor reported, but constituted within a rhetorical and political context. In the latter half of the chapter, I discuss the moral affordances of research reporting, focusing on questions of fairness, honesty, representation, and other considerations involved in report authoring. I focus specifically on questions of: collaboration and credit; style and representation; venue, availability, and audience; submission, editorial, and revision; and the dissemination and use of research reports.

This chapter evaluates the application of jurisdictional principles to cloud computing services and the core challenges for governments and others. The chapter considers the interplay of jurisdiction—the ability of a court to hear a dispute—in the context of physical location, intelligible access to data, and the physical location of servers.

In particular, the chapter focuses on areas of uncertainty, such as the categorization of services and the location of data and limits to current approaches. The chapter argues that the traditional territorial approach to jurisdiction is a poor fit to account for the properties of cloud computing services and data more generally arguing that data poses unique legal challenges to applying traditional jurisdiction principles.

The chapter provides an analysis of access to cloud computing services for law enforcement and intelligence purposes by the US government. This includes an analysis of the “Microsoft Warrant” case, the US CLOUD Act and its possible conflicts with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and access by US intelligence agencies under FISA Section 702 and Executive Order 12333.

Tyler Burge first introduced his distinction between epistemic entitlement and epistemic justification in ‘Content Preservation’ in 1993. He has since deployed the distinction in over twenty papers, changing his formulation around 2011. His distinction and its basis, however, is not well understood in the literature. This chapter distinguishes two uses of ‘entitlement’ in Burge and then focuses on the contrast between justification and entitlement, two forms of warrant, where warrants consists in the exercise of a reliable belief-forming competence. Since he draws the distinction in terms of reasons, this chapter brings his account of reasons altogether in one place. The chapter introduces a decision-procedure for classifying warrants as justifications or entitlements. The distinction is not the same as the inferential vs. non-inferential distinction. Inference is distinguished from processing, thinking, reasoning, and critically reasoning. Burge’s new formulation of the distinction was driven by the recognition of non-accessible modular reasons. Three kinds of access are distinguished.