@astepanovich That seems hard to square with FISC opinion, DiFi's disclosures. @normative @Krhawkins5 @KevinBankston
-
-
Replying to @RachelBLevinson
@RachelBLevinson Technically saying no public evidence that would let us know of other programs@normative@Krhawkins5@KevinBankston1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @astepanovich
@astepanovich That's certainly cutting it finely.@normative@Krhawkins5@KevinBankston2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RachelBLevinson
@RachelBLevinson I've listened to it 5 times now. He's really slimey here.@normative@Krhawkins5@KevinBankston1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @astepanovich
@astepanovich@RachelBLevinson@normative@Krhawkins5 The FISA Ct opinion clearly distinguished b/w upstream & PRISM in fn 24....4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
@KevinBankston Guess is Alexander is on knee-jerk denial of upstream right now@astepanovich@RachelBLevinson@normative@Krhawkins51 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel He did specifically ref. upstream - look btwn 2:23-2:25@KevinBankston@RachelBLevinson@normative@Krhawkins52 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @astepanovich
@astepanovich You're right, he does mention it. But starts by saying only PRISM under 702.@emptywheel@KevinBankston@normative@Krhawkins51 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RachelBLevinson
@RachelBLevinson@astepanovich@emptywheel@KevinBankston@Krhawkins5 Hmm. Is it explicit anywhere that 702 is the legal basis for Upstream?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Only on slide, off the top of my head. Also, may be but not exclusively?@RachelBLevinson@emptywheel@KevinBankston@Krhawkins51 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@astepanovich It's not exclusive. But Bates talks about faculty or some such thing. @normative @RachelBLevinson @KevinBankston @Krhawkins5
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.