This is quite confusing. Nunes has said the collection was "legal" and "incidental." But adds it was "inappropriate" and troubles him.
-
-
Armchair quarterbacking, basically, but with a point: raw SIGINT has a short reach, but derived reporting goes wide.
-
USP identities are masked in reporting (but not in the original, raw SIGINT), but can be unmasked on request.
-
...which dovetails with the current, unexplained obsession with unmasking procedures.
-
Perhaps he feels things that never should have met the threshold to enter the reporting stream did,went wide, got unmasked?
-
Most charitable explanation may be a complaint that "lawful but spurious" reportage improperly circulated innocuous comms.
-
Least charitable explanation: political self-interest leading to objections that are themselves spurious.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.