@tqbf @starkness i have no idea what that means. but sounds good.
@tqbf CISA (under Omnibus) also doesn't require co to DO anything if USG shares w/them @holmesworcester @fightfortheftr @starkness @harper
-
-
@emptywheel@holmesworcester Important distinction, because there’s no quid-pro-quo argument when co is recipient.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@emptywheel@tqbf Marcy, would you say the risk you identify here is still an issue in CISA language? https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/10/14/time-to-get-very-concerned-about-cisa-gutting-governmental-leverage-on-corporations-over-cyber/ … -
@holmesworcester Yes. And as I note there, one of authors of bill did not refute that's what the language does.@tqbf -
@emptywheel@holmesworcester Well, I was asked what I found misleading about FFTF lang, this is an example, & these tweets are unpersuasive. -
@tqbf Sorry. You're saying the author of the bill doesn't know what it says?@holmesworcester -
@emptywheel@holmesworcester No, if you reread what I wrote, you’ll see that I did not in fact say that. -
@tqbf You're saying tweets that reference what author of bill said abt this Q are unpersuasive. What would persuade you?@holmesworcester -
@emptywheel@holmesworcester No, I’m saying that “the author of the bill didn’t rebut me” isn’t a persuasive argument. -
@tqbf The author of the bill was asked a specific question. He said, basically, You're right, if co doesn't break law.@holmesworcester - 3 more replies
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.