@BradMossEsq You're arguing 12333 collected data should be treated under 215? @joshgerstein
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@joshgerstein Didn't opine on it either way. Was saying assuming they didn't, and still missed it, that would be a big fail2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq No. Actually your comment did nothing but demonstrate (again) you don't understand any of this. Zero.@joshgerstein1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@joshgerstein So, to be clear, you are saying the FBI can access all 5 years worth historical records collected under Sec 215?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq The article doesn't mention Section 215, does it? Can it access 5 years? Yes, via several means.@joshgerstein1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@joshgerstein But your conclusion assumes the data was collected by non-Sec 215 means, correct?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq But you keep defending that article by claiming it says something it doesn't. It is factually false.@joshgerstein2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@BradMossEsq@joshgerstein C'mon, description of NSA bulk-collection program plainly obvious it was reference to 215.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tbridis
.
@tbridis Is it your theory of journalism 1200 word articles should have FEWER explanatory details than tweets?@BradMossEsq@joshgerstein1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@BradMossEsq@joshgerstein Story has details, just not ones you think most important. Marcy, we write for different audiences.8 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.