This is quite confusing. Nunes has said the collection was "legal" and "incidental." But adds it was "inappropriate" and troubles him.
-
-
Replying to @MatthewNussbaum
May object to analyst determination re: reporting thresholds. "Lawfully intercepted but innocuous" comms "reported anyway."
1 reply 9 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @Snowden @MatthewNussbaum
Armchair quarterbacking, basically, but with a point: raw SIGINT has a short reach, but derived reporting goes wide.
1 reply 8 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @Snowden @MatthewNussbaum
USP identities are masked in reporting (but not in the original, raw SIGINT), but can be unmasked on request.
2 replies 11 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @Snowden @MatthewNussbaum
...which dovetails with the current, unexplained obsession with unmasking procedures.
1 reply 5 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Snowden @MatthewNussbaum
Perhaps he feels things that never should have met the threshold to enter the reporting stream did,went wide, got unmasked?
2 replies 13 retweets 18 likes
Most charitable explanation may be a complaint that "lawful but spurious" reportage improperly circulated innocuous comms.
-
-
Replying to @Snowden @MatthewNussbaum
Least charitable explanation: political self-interest leading to objections that are themselves spurious.
1 reply 10 retweets 26 likes - 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.