Mulling it over, I can actually think of a range of cases where "specific identifier" would block intuitively acceptable records demands.
@normative Sure. Al Qaeda = selection term. Selector "based on" that is "all phone calls from Yemen."
-
-
@emptywheel not that I'd put it past them to TRY that, but the intent clearly seems to be something narrower than that. -
@normative That's the definition enthusiastically embraced today, explicitly. -
@emptywheel I agree with that, but I think we're maybe conflating two distinct issues -
@normative You're talking intent. I'm saying intent laid out--selection based criteria, IC's def--is known to permit large scale collex
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel The "selection term" is what is included in the order to "describe the tangible things to be produced". -
@normative Just like "al Qaeda" is included in every existing phone dragnet order and has been for 8 years. Exactly! -
@emptywheel But "Al Qaeda" in those orders is not a selection term, it's a target. It is not the "basis for production" -
@normative I know you WANT this to be selector, not selection term. If bill said that, arg would be right. Not what bill says. -
@emptywheel I think you may be reading too much into the fact that the bill doesn't use a specific bit of intel jargon -
@normative Right. Laws that use one piece of jargon rather than another--jargon FISC has used for years--have no effect. Like "relevant to" - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel what would be wrong with al qaeda being only selector like the system@Thomas_Drake1 designed and@NSA_PR destroyed for PRISMThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.