@emptywheel @byersalex @granick Current law lets NSA get everyone in America in a single order; strongly believe we're improving from that
-
-
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
@JakeLaperruque But not analyze them. Ledgett has said they'll expose more USPs to analysis under new program.@byersalex@granick1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@byersalex@granick Nothing in §215 restricts analysis of bulk store, just internal rules that can be changed4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
@JakeLaperruque Also note, USAF changes retention from CT to FI purpose for CDR--another expansion.@byersalex@granick1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@byersalex@granick that was House bill; new Senate version fixed this problem2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
@JakeLaperruque Basically it gives the IC what they took by violation until 2009. Nifty!@byersalex@granick1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@jakelaperruque@byersalex Current 215 law requires relevance. Current practice violates that requirement. 2d Cir may crack down3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @granick
@granick@emptywheel@byersalex like reauthorization, that won't solve pen/trap and NSL3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
@jakelaperruque@emptywheel@byersalex Yes, it will. 2d cir will interpret "relevant", a word in all three statutes.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @granick
@granick@emptywheel@byersalex FISC finding way to narrow 2nd circuit ruling to 215 seems much more feasible than past interpretations3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@JakeLaperruque given the terms 2nd C was using, suspect their language would make that hard. @granick @byersalex
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.