But they did specifically cite that "about" searching was happening upstream, didn't say anything about downstream
-
-
Replying to @KevinBankston
You're assuming this is happening under 702?
@PCLOB_GOV1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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 @emptywheel
@dustinvolz We could also ask the Reuters reporter who liked your tweet...Is it *not* 702 or do you just not know auth for sure?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Also, this seems to have required building significant new capability, not merely providing access.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Presumably were asked for it under under 702 assistance provision, and yahoo complied (or fought & lost)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
If so, example of how "assistance" can go very wrong, given sec team found it.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze @KevinBankston and
Basically, they were compelled to build a hasty, insecure backdoor in a production system.
5 replies 6 retweets 10 likes
And either asked or Yahoo decided not to include their security team. @KevinBankston @dustinvolz
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @mattblaze and
not to mention their Business & Human Rights team?!?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lawyerpants @emptywheel and
Look, Peter, this is no time for jokes.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
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.