For Title I?
-
-
-
Maybe lawyers writing these letters should start paying someone who has read released docs? I've written on this. Ho hum.
-
I haven't seen the letter, but I JUST got finished telling
@Timothy_Edgar the lang was misleading. That's the better take. -
Oh, see, letter's not bad. Whoever reported it to Reuters is.
@Timothy_Edgar -
Tho not sure why anyone would believe TI is "particularized"/not mass after 2007 opinion, which was neither.
@Timothy_Edgar -
I don't want to speak for all the groups, but I think consensus is we believe that law should require it
-
Sure, and I agree with that. But I also know FISC has *long* approved of it.
@Timothy_Edgar
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
.
@emptywheel Is the choice of word "publicly" not correct? "Facilities" like AT&T's Room 641A were ID'd publicly, but email provider a 1st? -
1st email provider known. As you point out, since 2001 (and approved by FISC since 2007) facility hasn't meant just email.
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.