So any message involving, say, crypto the IGRC has had made for themselves would, BY DEFINITION, be a foreign comm.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
I think msg btwn 2 foreign agents, both on US soil, is a domestic com, tho hunting for it would be a valid foreign intel purpose
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @charlie_savage @emptywheel
Trad FISA allows coll. of domestic communications, no? Domestic comm is only an issue under 702 bec no warrant.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
That's his point. Regular FISA allows targeting of purely domestic comms, 702 doesn't.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KevinBankston @granick and
isn't the diff whether the target is a USP/ in the US-- NOT nature of the email?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Richardson_Mich @granick and
It's not a diff. Nature of the email that I'm discussing is *whether they are in US*
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
But who is "they"? If user of terrorist method is overseas, it'd be okay under 702
@Richardson_Mich@granick@charlie_savage1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @Richardson_Mich and
"They" being parties to the communications being targeted.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
So long as one party overseas, collex would be OK under 702 (tho agree it's FISA)
@Richardson_Mich@granick@charlie_savage2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @KevinBankston and
Not sure that's right if collection requires *searching* domestic comms
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But they do that under upstream 702 now, right? @KevinBankston @Richardson_Mich @granick @charlie_savage
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.