@jenvalentino @RachelBLevinson I'm guessing ISPs weren't storing the level of detail they wanted, requiring them to pull it off the wire.
-
-
Replying to @normative
@normative So you think they had to suck it all up w/ net metadata, not with telephony? And hence collection more of an issue?@jenvalentino2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RachelBLevinson
@RachelBLevinson@jenvalentino So as soon as they're going beyond demanding existing biz records, it's either a pen reg or full elsur2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative@RachelBLevinson Yes right I think. And since they went with PR/TT order later, one can assume they determined it was a PR/TT.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jenvalentino
@jenvalentino Note that this was in 2004, so before Section 215 began being used for phone metadata.@normative6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RachelBLevinson
@RachelBLevinson@jenvalentino But the phone data is at least clearly beyond 4th Amdt protection/subpoenable under current doctrine.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative@RachelBLevinson ALSO they had already determined phone stuff was biz records in 2004. That's why it was OK without court order.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jenvalentino
@jenvalentino What do you make of 215 IG Report detail they used hybrid PR/TT & 215 for a period of transition?@normative@RachelBLevinson1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@normative@RachelBLevinson The 2009 NSA IG report? Which part?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jenvalentino
@jenvalentino On p. 38-39, talks about transition from PSP to PR/TT to FISC order.@emptywheel@normative3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@RachelBLevinson That's one of the references to the secret collection. (FN 23) But limited to 2005-2006. @jenvalentino @normative
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.