What has not been explained well re: Yahoo/Prism is: did providers have any control/pushback over target selectors? Or was it all automated?
-
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green
@matthew_d_green Are you reading new Yahoo docs? They complained earliest directives were very inaccurate. Court didn't GAF.2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel What form did the directives take, and were Yahoo employees responsible for manually collecting and delivering the data?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
@matthew_d_green It was clear Yahoo had a hands-on role. But also clear other providers may not have. Also, requested types changed in year.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel In the initial denials there was talk of surveillance requests being authorized on a case by case basis. But that was BS, right?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @matthew_d_green
@matthew_d_green Correct. They are probably accessed from some of the providers' systems individually, but w/o any ability to challenge.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Not to pile on Yahoo or the providers, but has anyone reviewed those original denials against the new information?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@matthew_d_green There honestly isn't enough detail to do that. See this declaration fr Yahoo's compliance manager:
http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/0909/Yahoo%20Declaration%2020080123.pdf …
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
trouble with government by redacted transparency
@emptywheel@matthew_d_green is all one can know, is one knows nothing for certain0 replies 1 retweet 1 likeThanks. 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.