@FutureTenseNow Your line explicitly refers to the bulk program, if you don't mean that then you should change your piece
I'm kind of amused you guys are arguing over "some ways codified" and ALSO neither talking 12333. @SeanVitka
-
-
my concern is with description of the status of a domestic bulk collection program
@SeanVitka -
Yeah. But you keep throwing around words
@SeanVitka didn't use. -
the words I'm concerned with "the program" as in the bulk nationwide untargeted collection 215 program
-
Yes, and fact that you're using 215 in isolation from impacts doesn't serve you well. IT WAS NEVER ENTIRE PROGRAM
@SeanVitka -
the reference in the piece is to the 215 bulk collection program
-
Jake, Jake, Jake. Referring to a 215 program is repeating IC propaganda they used to dupe you.
@SeanVitka -
No, it's referring to legal authority for nationwide bulk collection (which you know isn't permitted under EO 12333)
-
Um. When you actually read the docs on what the program did we can talk. You're missing the tech here.
@SeanVitka - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Because the way 2-hop CONNECTION chaining intersects w/(now expanded) 12333 "got codified."
@SeanVitka -
But then no one really wanted to talk abt 12333 part of dragnet bc that would 1) require reading 2) admit dragnet
@SeanVitka -
W/BOTH they get 1) ongoing bulk collex of intl phone records 2) connection chaining beyond AT&T. Expansion!
@SeanVitka -
And that obviously ALSO means more people get sucked into NSA's full analytical analysis indefinitely.
@SeanVitka
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.