@Gorman_Siobhan Could be--esp since Leahy-Sensenbrenner makes upstream unavailable for cyber purposes after 6 months (if it were to pass)
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I didn't realize that provision was in Leahy-Sensenbrenner. Interesting.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gorman_Siobhan
@Gorman_Siobhan It's not explicit, but that seems to be the clear intent: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/11/07/leahy-sensenbrenner-would-shut-the-section-702-cybersecurity-loophole/ …3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@Gorman_Siobhan Nothing in that language rules out 702 for cyberexcept to the extent that it requires "about" searches.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative@emptywheel Does seem to limit collection on the topics of CT & prolif, but seems to allow targeting ppl for reasons beyond those2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Gorman_Siobhan
@Gorman_Siobhan@emptywheel Bill just says acquisition can only be triggered by email CONTENT referring to terror/proliferation selectors3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative But I also think they're not searching on IPs or websites, but actual pieces of code.@Gorman_Siobhan2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@Gorman_Siobhan Targeting for cyber would be mostly upstream, and probably IP based at least as often as "about"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Agree that wouldn't be shut down. But I'm guessing upstream, about code, is a lot of what 2011 issue was about@Gorman_Siobhan2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@Gorman_Siobhan Hmm. Interested to hear the case, tho this is again probably not the optimal venue.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@normative Agree. Catch you later. @Gorman_Siobhan
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.