Surprisingly, Litt opining on legal Q of whether 215 could be used to enable internet dragnet. (He says probably not.) #whowatchesUS
-
-
Replying to @RachelBLevinson
@RachelBLevinson I took Litt to say email metadata prog wasn't under 215, not that similar prog *couldn't* happen w/ 215—like netflow data.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey@RachelBLevinson I don't think it could be; backbone providers don't typically keep "records" of the information they'd want2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative The technologists I've talked to say companies create and keep netflow data for short periods—available for 215 RachelBLevinson1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey Netflow data wouldn't normally include SMTP header info, would it? At most you'd see the user connected to an email server.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative I misspoke; meant they can get IP & netflow data via 215 for cyber investigations, not email metadata like old PRTT program.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey@normative but we still don't have a straight yes/no answer about whether there is bulk IP program, do we?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
@JakeLaperruque@PatrickCToomey They have claimed that currently the telephony program is the only "bulk" domestic program.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@normative In any case, note IP addresses described by Burr slightly diff than description of PRTT dragnet @JakeLaperruque @PatrickCToomey
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.