.@benjaminwittes suggestion that Apple might be criminally liable for continuing to provide iMessage service to subject of wiretap order....
-
-
Replying to @KevinBankston
...ignores that wiretap orders require the recipient to assist unobtrusively and with minimal interruption of service... Cc
@benjaminwittes3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
@KevinBankston@PatrickCToomey already reminded him of that.@benjaminwittes1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@PatrickCToomey@benjaminwittes ah, I am coming late to the party1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
@KevinBankston It's alright. Now maybe@benjaminwittes will update post and admit lots of libertliberals actually engaging@PatrickCToomey1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@benjaminwittes@PatrickCToomey Always happy to engage with Ben because he's a smart thoughtful fellow, despite disagreements.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
@emptywheel@benjaminwittes@PatrickCToomey ...although we both ultimately agree here – – liability under either theory is a huge stretch1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
@emptywheel@benjaminwittes@PatrickCToomey Now I'm curious to see an analysis of when Apple might be held liable for *not* encrypting data.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@KevinBankston But if you're not weighing benes of encryption against costs, exercise is counterproductive @benjaminwittes @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.