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
Possible it's 702 but could also be a FISA content order tied to a "signature" of some kind.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think the use of the term "directive" is a strong indication that it was under 702
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If so, then 702 targeting procedures have likely expanded to permit very exotic types of selectors.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
NSA was using 702 upstream w/cyber signatures by 2012.
@AlanInDC@KevinBankston3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @PatrickCToomey and
See new Wyden statement at bottom, here:http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/report-fbi-andor-nsa-ordered-yahoo-to-build-secret-e-mail-search-tool/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I think it's also inaccurate, frankly. @PatrickCToomey @AlanInDC @KevinBankston
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.