@charlie_savage Don't forget, this is not just abt terror targets. They do use it for cyber, which involves non-email targets. @Colinfreeze
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@charlie_savage Sorry in what specific ways can cyberdefence cast a wider net and deviate from SIGINT in this way?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Colinfreeze
@Colinfreeze I think@emptywheel's point is they may be using certain code associated with known malicious hacks as a "selector"3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @charlie_savage
@charlie_savage Yes. They do that.@Colinfreeze3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@charlie_savage One Q: Cdn judges worry relevant law mangled by CSEC's in house lawyers, ie. used as "shield" not "sword" ...2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @Colinfreeze
@emptywheel@charlie_savage ...using it for its stated intent of going after specific bad guys/ foreign intel targets. Is there US parallel?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Colinfreeze
@Colinfreeze There's a belief that Muslim dissent (to say, Iraq war) is foreign. That's crazy, but in lots of court docs.@charlie_savage1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@charlie_savage Wow and wow. So specific (but classified) authorization language and targeting authorities really matter, huh?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Colinfreeze
@Colinfreeze I think it just morphed that way. Iraq was included for a time, too. ANd Iran appears to be.@charlie_savage2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@Colinfreeze I don't necessarily share@emptywheel 's point of view on this point, for record. Want to think about it more.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@charlie_savage :) Tho Tye clearly suggests that's going on, in his WaPo piece and PCLOB testimony. @Colinfreeze
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.