Let's stipulate NSA/Verizon is bad/wrong; on what basis are people saying it's illegal? Is it, or is it allowed by Patriot ACT?
@papicek What language are you referring to? NOTHING requires tie to suspect. Nothing. @DanaHoule
-
-
@emptywheel@DanaHoule ". . . tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation" -
@papicek Yes, "relevant to." Not, "directly connected to." "relevant to means only that they need info for it.@DanaHoule -
@emptywheel@DanaHoule Ok, that's splitting hairs, but such a big haul cannot be relevant to anything specifically being investigated. -
@papicek@DanaHoule Well, when someone gets standing to argue that, I hope Kennedy agrees with you. But it is, in fact, how govt has used it -
@emptywheel@DanaHoule My whole point is that they're acting in contravention of the law as stated. -
@papicek No. THey're not. There has been CLEAR congressional debate abt this. REJECTED efforts to tie it to specific suspect.@DanaHoule -
@emptywheel@DanaHoule But that's not what they wrote down & passed as law though. The language is pretty clear. -
@papicek What they passed as law specifically rejected the reading you're clinging to. Explicitly.@DanaHoule - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel RELEVANT TO AN AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATION -
@papicek Yes yes yes. That is the language I've pointed at. You're simply assuming relevant to means something it doesn't. -
@emptywheel Plus, there are the minimization constraints. in 2 (B) and repeated in (c)(1). -
@papicek Yes. Minimization. And what review is there of it? What standards for using info that is evidence of crime?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel@DanaHoule "a statement of facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the . . "Thanks. 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.