The DoJ Addresses the Relevance Question as to Section 215: When the Verizon telephony metadata issue first br... http://bit.ly/1bv7sul
-
-
@benwizner I don't think it's illegal, since the reading emerged from the processes we have in this country for determining legality. -
@benjaminwittes And, in any event, you're allowed to disagree with a ruling that "emerges" from a court. I've seen you do it before. . . -
@benwizner You didn't ask if I thought the court's ruling was wrong. You asked if I thought the program illegal. -
@benjaminwittes Fair enough.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@benwizner@lawfareblog@benjaminwittes Exactly. His entire argument pretends the 4th Amendment doesn't exist. -
@dametzger it's not a fourth amendment issue, because of the 3d party doctrine. I agree with government on that point.@benwizner -
@benjaminwittes@benwizner Respectfully disagree. 3rd party doc is horribly flawed as evidenced by today's tech. Guessing Scalia would too. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@benwizner that said, it's not an intuitive reading to me, and I'm not wholly comfortable with it.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@benwizner@lawfareblog@benjaminwittes He’s assuming the dataset relevance ad hock; a proof that relevant parts relevance exist comes 1st.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
.
@benwizner@lawfareblog@benjaminwittes Illegal? It is insane."All of it is relevant, because some of it it is"? It's the opposite of logicThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.