NSA has your phone records for 5 years. But needs 'reasonable articulable suspicion' to search them, provided by a court that never says no.
-
-
Replying to @attackerman
@attackerman Not correct. 1) Earlier colloquy indicated not court review, 2) debate over "articulable."2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel but you mean there's debate over the MEANING of 'articulable', not that there isn't SOME affirmation of 'articulable' fact?2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @attackerman
@attackerman ANyway, are you there? Can you ask DiFi WHO has to approve those specific and maybe-articulable facts?1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I'm not there but I can hunt this question down to the ends of the earth, one way or another.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attackerman
@attackerman FWIW, I'd bet the authority is, "my bellybutton." Cause otherwise there's REALLY no reason not to use the phone companies.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I've pinged every relevant intelligence agency & Feinstein's office to get an answer to this question. We'll see what they say.2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
@attackerman OK. If they answer IS "bellybutton" I hereby designate this the bellybutton provision.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@attackerman and what you guys are doing is awesome. Journalism that is sorely needed! Cheers.0 replies 1 retweet 1 likeThanks. 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.