@normative Not for PRTT at least. It is the basis "for selecting" the telephone lines (that is, selectors) that will be used.
@normative And you are asking to dismiss both the plain language in bill AND known use of jargon to interpret different meaning.
-
-
@emptywheel "Basis for selecting" is only in PR/TT, and while I get why that phrase worries you, what you're envisioning is...Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel ...the "selection term" being the basis for selecting ANOTHER selector that describes the facility. But it doesn't say that.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel it's the basis for selecting "the facility" or "the phone line" (singular) not an additional description of the facility.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel Would you be more comfortable if it said "basis for identifying" rather than "basis for selecting"? -
@normative No! "Basis for" is always interpretation. I'd be happy if it said "selector" used as such, which is how you're reinterpreted it. -
@emptywheel The results of the first production are a series of phone numbers used as the "basis for" round two -
@normative One reason it prolly says that is bc of the way it correlates across identifiers. Phone number > All smart phone activities > etc -
@emptywheel There's also, at this point, a legislative track record that should make it hard for the FISC to twist it that way. -
@normative Again EVERY SINGLE TIME anyone today said "bulk collection" today they adopted IC definition, not plain English one. -
@emptywheel well, the intuitive sense of "bulk" is regrettably hard to operationalize. I'd also rather they did it by restricting "relevant" -
@normative But it is undeniable HJC adopted IC definition for bulk, explicitly, bc that is what they used: selector =/= bulk. - 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel I think you're worried here because "select" implies an additional discretionary step, whereas I'm taking it to mean "identity" -
@normative Again, all of these scenarios could be dealt with by IDing "account." Why doesn't it? -
@emptywheel Because if my selection term to AT&T is a Yemeni number, there's no corresponding "account" with AT&T -
@normative Not with AT&T. No. But it is an account.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel@normative I dont understand if this debate is over semantics or if there is a substantive ideological divide.#intelThanks. 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.