@trevortimm @csoghoian @jamesrbuk Yeah, pretty sure that's a long-settled question. Subject lines are content.
-
-
Replying to @normative
@normative@csoghoian@jamesrbuk I know DOJ makes it clear, but the NSA suggested it in 2006, and I thought WaPo did the other day too1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm
@normative@csoghoian@jamesrbuk I'll dig it up when I get to a computer1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm
@normative@csoghoian@jamesrbuk So I was referring to this in the WSJ, but unclear if they're referring to content: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324798904578531672407107306?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm
@trevortimm@normative@csoghoian@jamesrbuk That story is talking about content collected under 702, I think.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jenvalentino
@jenvalentino@normative@csoghoian@jamesrbuk Still, Hayden's claim about subject lines has never been challenged as far as I know.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm
@trevortimm Seem to remember it coming up in a hearing somewhere, possibly even with him.@jenvalentino@normative@csoghoian@jamesrbuk1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Besides the hearing referenced here on page 47? https://www.eff.org/file/35728#page/1/mode/1up …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @trevortimm
@trevortimm What was the date on it? And Committee?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel May 18, 2006, Senate Intelligence http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051800823.html …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@trevortimm Jeebus we've been doing this too long. Particularly interesting timing for him given WSJ just bused Trailblazer.
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.