@normative Well, it's certainly not a reform. (And Litt did say that transparency will allow them to use more.)
-
-
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 -
Replying to @normative
@normative I use the word nonsense bc the whole FBI practice is so far beyond the realm of reason that it shouldn't be taken as serious.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Not disagreeing, but still don’t see how adding weak restrictions constitutes an “expansion."1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative Because he indicated they'll use it now? Past secret restrictions with no usage w/present stated restrictions w/usage=expansion1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel But the predicted increase in usage would be driven by factors unrelated to the restrictions.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@normative In 20 months since PRISM revealed no non-terror crime has been noticed.
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.