"They" being parties to the communications being targeted.
-
-
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
But 1 point of post is, if they GET to email via sig, not person, how foreignness?
@Richardson_Mich@granick@charlie_savage2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @Richardson_Mich and
How do they establish foreignness, for 702 purposes? Trying to understand yr shorthand
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
Yes. State-sponsored terror sig itself "foreign" but 1 email user'd have to be too
@Richardson_Mich@granick@charlie_savage1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @Richardson_Mich and
Agreed, but at this point there's no indication of targeting based on user foreignness
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston
Under FISA, no need. If 702, it's part of targeting procedures now
@Richardson_Mich@granick@charlie_savage1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @Richardson_Mich and
Agreed! I think we're arguing about how we agree, somehow :-) Sometimes I hate Twitter
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston @emptywheel and
More fun question--whether Title I or 702, why agree to make custom wiretap mods...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KevinBankston @emptywheel and
...when strong arg that only CALEA entities have to do that sort of thing?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
How many other FISC orders do you think we'll find similar to be true of? @Richardson_Mich @granick @charlie_savage
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @Richardson_Mich and
I have reason to hope not too many.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.