David SimonVerified account

@AoDespair Many disagree. And NSA gets metadata and content in advance of warrant, by virtue of tech. Only use ("targeting") is caveated.

@Snowden @kansasalps My training is that of a newspaperman. All gov'ts lie, as per IF Stone. And yet they must govern nonetheless.

@AoDespair The distance between governing and ruling is measured in the capacity to exercise power without accountability. The lies matter.

@Snowden @AoDespair When the gov't condemns the criticism & revelation of its true workings it has thusly admitted it's tyrannical nature.

@LuckyPyrate @Snowden if-then proposition is flawed. Not re: criticism, but revelat'n Every gov on Earth must maintain legit sec secrets.

@AoDespair @Snowden I refer not to revelation in total, but revelation that violates the basic rights of the citizenry must be made known.

@AoDespair @Snowden FYI, In the state of Maryland, location data now requires a court order with probable cause.

@csoghoian @Snowden same for phone metadata correct? Again, court order is one thing. Warrant another.

@AoDespair @Snowden The "court orders" used to obtain location data require probable cause. They are, for all intents and purposes, warrants

@AoDespair @Snowden If by metadata, you mean call records, then no, that does not require a warrant in Maryland. It does in some states.

@csoghoian @Snowden Gotcha. But can I assume all US metadata acquisition still operating under Smith v Md.?

@AoDespair @Snowden Federal law acts as a floor. States are free to provide higher protections (but only apply to state/local cops, not FBI)

@csoghoian @Snowden I don't think this is correct. A fed investigation goes by US code to fed court, no?