@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.
-
-
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 Also, legislative record only matters when a defendant gets review. DOJ refuses to do that for 215.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel FISC did (tendentiously) look at the legislative record in its written opinions.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Tendentiously is a polite term for what they did, and only when it became public.5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Because the "selection term" is effectively just the target, so they can submit the same old application again.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Yes. I believe they can. Nothing I've seen makes me believe this requires a change. Nothing.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel God knows I don't put much stock in "vigorous oversight by all three branches" but if we're THAT completely fucked...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@normative I'm not saying we're completely fucked. I'm saying Congress has ability to do far better than they did today. They chose not to.
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.