@emptywheel I think this is a mistake. They COULD always use 702 intercepts in all sorts of criminal cases; they just didn’t in practice.
-
-
-
@normative Well, it's certainly not a reform. (And Litt did say that transparency will allow them to use more.) -
@emptywheel Riight, but if that means they’d otherwise be more willing to use 702 intel in criminal prosecution, this limit might matter. -
@normative Why? What do these limits actually mean? They permit for investigative use of 702 FAR beyond real crimes. -
@emptywheel Right, but that’s not a new permission. Still more limited than what was previously allowed, even if in practice (1/2) -
@normative Nonsense! Moreover, it says nothing about use of 702 on assessments, which are still permitted. -
@emptywheel Well... I’m not sure how to respond to “Nonsense!” -
@normative How do we know what was "allowed"? We know used it for evidence free assessments. They still do! We know they never gave notice.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel Their transparency means Info flows thru parallel tunnel like pipelines. Not the way of clarification meaning in it.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel And of course, parallel construction means we don’t necessarily know when info “derived from” 702 intel was used.Thanks. 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.