Yes, and fact that you're using 215 in isolation from impacts doesn't serve you well. IT WAS NEVER ENTIRE PROGRAM @SeanVitka
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @SeanVitka
the reference in the piece is to the 215 bulk collection program
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
Jake, Jake, Jake. Referring to a 215 program is repeating IC propaganda they used to dupe you.
@SeanVitka2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @SeanVitka
No, it's referring to legal authority for nationwide bulk collection (which you know isn't permitted under EO 12333)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
Um. When you actually read the docs on what the program did we can talk. You're missing the tech here.
@SeanVitka1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @JakeLaperruque
Anyway, I'm glad you're in such a panic over 3 LITTLE WORDS. But you should learn more abt how this program works
@SeanVitka2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @SeanVitka
Go back and read the original Guardian article. Read the DOJ legal opinion. Read the PCLOB report.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
Jake, UNLIKE YOU I've read primary documents. UNLIKE YOU, I've seen how analysts accessed this. DO NOT LECTURE ME
@SeanVitka2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel @JakeLaperruque
When you DO YOUR HOMEWORK we can chat about how that parroting could have been avoided.
@SeanVitka1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Marcy I've the docs, the reports, and just b/c I & everyone else has a different take than you doesn't make us less intelligent
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes. But every point I've made has been proven right.
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.