@speechboy71 No. All we know is they said the surveillance violated 4th Amendment grounds on 1 occasion. They reject nearly no surv requests
-
-
-
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 in 35 years of existence the court has rejected low-teens surveillance requests out of tens of thousands.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attackerman
@speechboy71 it's probably more accurate to think of FISC as mechanism to approve surveillance than a check on it. Eh,@emptywheel?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attackerman
@attackerman@emptywheel Yes, that's the point I was making. FISC sets rules NSA is expected to abide by them.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 But who checks? If Snowden correct not keystroke audits, but instead reports, you're in Exigent letters land.@attackerman1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel & DiFi told me Court does not pre approve metadata database queries. Logical given mission of program but no check@speechboy712 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attackerman
@attackerman@emptywheel Yup, I'm aware of that.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 Also, let's go back. Big part of "the law" is consequences. There are no LEGAL ones here. Job security, maybe.@attackerman1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@attackerman I think losing ones job is a pretty big consequence2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@speechboy71 Sure. But as far as we know no one lost jobs for the 6500 violations of law under this programs predecessor. @attackerman
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.