@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.
-
-
Replying to @normative
@normative Did Litt give more details about past practice? PCLOB report said FBI sometimes used 702 in ordinary criminal cases.@emptywheel2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey No. He said he didn't know of any. Cause if he did, there'd be notice, right? Hahahaha! Bwahahaha! Hahahaha!@normative1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Also, did he distinguish between using 702 info directly in court, and evidence "derived from" 702 collection?@normative3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey@emptywheel Whereas “derived from” might mean parallel construction.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @normative
@normative@emptywheel Yeah, they could almost always re-obtain the same communications using other authorities3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey One QI have is whether timed this NOT to 1 year on Obama but to initial read that 702 challenges going nowhere.@normative2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel If they think suits are going nowhere, why embrace add'l limits?@normative1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey As I've said, I think these don't work as limits, but as permissions. Big Q is why not and not in summer 2013.@normative1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Why do they need permission? Backdoor searches were ok'd in 2011 when they withdrew the prohibition@normative2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@PatrickCToomey No. FBI's were ok'ed in 2008. NSA and CIA were ok'ed based on that prior OK. @normative
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.