@Susan_Hennessey 2 honest Qs: Why does "Essentially Equiv" measure treatment of citizens, not foreigners? @ncweaver
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@ncweaver I didn't author, but I think to mirror the relevant EU Directive cited in Schrems as baseline.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Susan_Hennessey
@Susan_Hennessey And the "bulk" question? Is that defined in any legal precedent both sides have to abide by/accept?@ncweaver2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@ncweaver But I can't think of a public case or statute defining bulk. I'll dig around a bit though, it's interesting question.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Susan_Hennessey
@Susan_Hennessey Thanks. Seems to be inevitable stumbling point bc most people have totally diff understanding of bulk than IC@ncweaver3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@ncweaver So public and binding definition of bulk is anything that does not meet that threshold.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Susan_Hennessey
@emptywheel@ncweaver In other words bulk =/= no specific selector.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Susan_Hennessey
@Susan_Hennessey@emptywheel@ncweaver There's a discussion here, FWIW.http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19414/bulk-collection-of-signals-intelligence-technical-options …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative That entire report was narrowly crafted by Clapper, scope is pretty bogus. Also not legal doc@Susan_Hennessey@ncweaver1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@Susan_Hennessey@ncweaver Well, it's a term with no legal significance, so why would there be a legal doc defining it?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@normative Right: My point is Safe Harbor undermined by IC presumption their def of bulk is accepted. It's not @Susan_Hennessey @ncweaver
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.