@normative Is there a bill that requires a specific identifier?
Because I'd love to support that one.
@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 One is that a broad selection term (or large number of them) still permits bulkISH collection. IP address, say.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel You're suggesting the "selection term" might actually be one level of abstraction higher than that even. ("Al Qaeda") -
@normative Selection terms laid out in existing phone dragnet orders are "al Qaeda." fr that FISC has already authorized range of selectors.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel But you can't serve an order on a carrier containing "Al Qaeda" as the "term" that describes the records to be produced -
@normative That is precisely what is in the Secondary Orders right now. Yes. You have to come up with "selectors" based on that.
End of conversation
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.