@PatrickCToomey No. He said he didn't know of any. Cause if he did, there'd be notice, right? Hahahaha! Bwahahaha! Hahahaha! @normative
-
-
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 -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey Also suspect this relates to FBI's greater role in targeting. If you target then you can get criminal easier.@normative1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Yes—it allows FBI to relabel any transnational criminal investigation an FI investigation@normative1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@PatrickCToomey My suspicion is they have already done that in awkward ways (w/o notice, of course) & this normalizes status quo @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.