@emptywheel re list of crimes on FBI 28 & Litt's list, I think crime referrals (derivative)≠crimes where 702 can be used as direct evidence
-
-
Replying to @charlie_savage
@charlie_savage But even if that's right, is the derivative use new?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Who knows given shenanigans re 702derived notice? Also DOJ has never used 702 as direct evidence to date, so new limits=shrug2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @charlie_savage
@charlie_savage Well, that's part of why I think new "limits" are expansion. If they're going to indirect more often, then expansion, no?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel That assumes they weren't indirecting left and right all along tho1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @charlie_savage
@charlie_savage True. Tho Litt did seem to suggest that increased transparency will make it easier to use 702.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel That's probably true. Power through constraint! There's a long history of that in surveillance land.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @charlie_savage
@emptywheel Does every 702 tip/referral to open an assessment count require a derived notice? I don't think govt thinks so.3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@charlie_savage Imagine if they had to admit their UI cooperated bc of something they found in his communications off back door search?
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.