@JohnWonderlich - It's a Twitter-induced oversimplification - couldn't fit "of business records under foreign intelligence authorities."
@LizaGoitein Therefore, given that it is CLEAR possibility, it has ALREADY existed, you can't say this ends bulk @SeanVitka @JohnWonderlich
-
-
@emptywheel@SeanVitka@JohnWonderlich - That's like saying USAF has a carve-out for towns because it only mentions cities at p 18 line 5. -
@LizaGoitein No. It's saying USAF names 2 towns as ONLY prohibited ones, and some people misread it as "towns"@SeanVitka@JohnWonderlich -
@emptywheel@SeanVitka@JohnWonderlich Doesn't say they are the ONLY prohibited ones... the phrase "such as" means the opposite of "only." -
@LizaGoitein You do realize that when you want to prohibit something, good practice is to prohibit it by name?@SeanVitka@JohnWonderlich -
@emptywheel@SeanVitka@JohnWonderlich Not when the whole point is to prohibit things they/we don't know about yet. -
@LizaGoitein But we DO know about this. We know abt Western Union, we know they've used for H2O2.@SeanVitka@JohnWonderlich -
@emptywheel@SeanVitka@JohnWonderlich They could be getting all kinds of records, hence the non-exhaustive list. Speaking of exhaustive...
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.