@normative And you are asking to dismiss both the plain language in bill AND known use of jargon to interpret different meaning.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Would you be more comfortable if it said "basis for identifying" rather than "basis for selecting"?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@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.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel The results of the first production are a series of phone numbers used as the "basis for" round two1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative One reason it prolly says that is bc of the way it correlates across identifiers. Phone number > All smart phone activities > etc1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel There's also, at this point, a legislative track record that should make it hard for the FISC to twist it that way.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Again EVERY SINGLE TIME anyone today said "bulk collection" today they adopted IC definition, not plain English one.1 reply 5 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel well, the intuitive sense of "bulk" is regrettably hard to operationalize. I'd also rather they did it by restricting "relevant"2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative But it is undeniable HJC adopted IC definition for bulk, explicitly, bc that is what they used: selector =/= bulk.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Yeah, though for the phone records at least there's a RAS requirement that each term be "associated with" an AFP2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@normative FTR I assume they'll get high volume operationally correct, but also assume that brings horrible structural consequences.
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.