Bob Litt pitched what appears to be an EXPANSION of use of back door searches in criminal prosecution as a reform. http://www.salon.com/2015/02/05/fbis_rich_white_man_hypocrisy_how_new_policy_will_let_the_1_percent_skate_free/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow …
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@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.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Well, it's certainly not a reform. (And Litt did say that transparency will allow them to use more.)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Riight, but if that means they’d otherwise be more willing to use 702 intel in criminal prosecution, this limit might matter.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Why? What do these limits actually mean? They permit for investigative use of 702 FAR beyond real crimes.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Right, but that’s not a new permission. Still more limited than what was previously allowed, even if in practice (1/2)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Nonsense! Moreover, it says nothing about use of 702 on assessments, which are still permitted.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Well... I’m not sure how to respond to “Nonsense!”3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@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.
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.