@OrinKerr throws cold water on misleading/incomplete hype from @nytimes piece #NSA http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/16/did-the-nsa-really-help-spy-on-u-s-lawyers/ …
@BradMossEsq Again, the NSA EXPLICITLY allows the use of intel except when collected post-indictment. @bmaz
-
-
@emptywheel@bmaz Subject to minimization (or does that not apply to corporate store?) -
@BradMossEsq Subject to minimization. How hard is it for prosecutor to guess who "USP lawyer" sub is when he's gotten legal notice?@bmaz -
@emptywheel@bmaz Restrictions in article mention info can't be shared with prosecutors. And pre-indictment use subject to challenge. -
@BradMossEsq Post-indictment can't be shared w/prosecutor. Pre-indictment can be. They took 6 mos to indict Medunjanin. 42 convos@bmaz -
@emptywheel@bmaz Any restriction on ability to challenge admissibility of that info I'm not thinking of? -
@BradMossEsq You're assuming they'll get notice to it. Wondering whether we'll hear from Pete Seda case on notice. http://www.emptywheel.net/2009/06/04/vaughn-walkers-chess-game-the-cases/ … -
@emptywheel Under updated notice rules I would expect it. That is something I view as non-negotiable. -
@BradMossEsq They only get notice on stuff introduced. That's why I raise Seda. Surely fruit of illegal surveil, never able to challenge - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.