.@granick Good piece, but disagree on points, especially that a USA FREEDOM SST could encompass hundreds of thousands http://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2015/05/28/a-sunset-is-a-beautiful-thing/ …
-
-
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
@jakelaperruque Thanks! Do you disagree w@emptywheel on bill allowing use corporate persons as selectors? https://www.emptywheel.net/2014/07/29/leahy-usa-freedoms-bulky-corporate-persons/ …2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @granick
@granick@emptywheel Yes; I think the non-exclusive clause makes that exclusion apply to other companies based on scale2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
@jakelaperruque Sorry, 140 char… Which non-exclusive clause?@emptywheel1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @granick
@granick@emptywheel Says that the exclusion applies to entities "such as" ESC or remote computing service provider2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
@JakeLaperruque Suffice it to say I find it unpersuasive. Moreover, if intent was to prohibit it, say so explicitly.@granick2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@jakelaperruque I'm with@emptywheel. Specific ref to narrow statutory def means unlikely to apply to "Stanford" never mind "Visa".1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @granick
@granick@emptywheel Seems unlikely to me, but that's why FISC disclosure (removed from Feinstein & Burr bills) is so important2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
@granick@emptywheel Although I know we disagree about whether the language is strong enough there too2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
@JakeLaperruque Bingo. 1) FISC has ALREADY approved 2) we have examples of summaries fr Vaughn 3) FISC proven unreliable arbiter @granick
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.