2nd Cir 215 ruling is hugely important, but note that they let stand the denial of relief, since it's "just a few more weeks".
-
-
Replying to @mattblaze
Given that an injunction is pretty much the only effective relief against natsec (non criminal) surveillance, that seems unfortunate.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze
Even when the court's opinion is as unequivocal as here, getting an injunction against national security programs seems almost impossible.
3 replies 4 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze
@mattblaze Injunction isn't the only possible relief. Now the phone companies have to decide whether to break 2d Cir. law.2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @mattblaze
@mattblaze Both Sprint and VZ had pursued limited challenges in past. Half-heartedly tho, esp from VZ.@granick3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@granick Telcos in my experience want whatever legal cover is required to let them make gov't as happy as possible.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @mattblaze
@mattblaze@emptywheel See David Kris on telco int'l politics, toward the end: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/05/on-the-second-circuits-section-215-decision/ …2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @granick
@granick@emptywheel Yeah, but "providers" covers a wide range. Legacy telcos care a *lot* about keeping gov't happy.1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
@mattblaze I think VZ is in a very different place than AT&T. @granick
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@granick Could be. Why do you think?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze
@mattblaze I think a BIG part of claims they don't get all phone records is due to VZ being strict abt wording of orders.@granick0 replies 1 retweet 1 like
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.