You're assuming this is happening under 702? @PCLOB_GOV
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @PCLOB_GOV
I am. The article speaks of a "directive", mentions FISAAA, and what's described sounds like "about" searching.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KevinBankston
But the article does not assert that's the authority.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
That is correct. It is an assumption. Curious what you think it might be if not that.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
Working on that. I do think NOW it may be under CISA.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
But CISA doesn't authorize directives like that. It could be 702, for a cybersec purpose.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
You're assuming there's a 702 cyber directive now too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
No, you're assuming that :-) Though I don't think it's an unsafe assumption.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
Oh, I'm not assuming that at all. I've written extensively on why I think there might not be one.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
I will sadly admit that I don't have the time to read all your stuff like back in the day :-( Best link?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Let me finish the post I'm working on.
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.