But it is also the case that claim Gov needs warrant to do what Paul linked to (and thereby was talking about) is utterly false.
-
-
Empty, your thread has personal deprecating comments that r not helpful (Kremlinesque) when words could be better spent in clarification.
-
It's not Kremlinesque to call anything you don't understand provokatsiya?
-
Gosh, I understand metadata v content. I do understand provokatsiya and it's anti-Kremlin to call it out.
-
This tweet shows you don't understand this.https://twitter.com/Bwonk_Bwonk/status/860542812433121280 …
-
It's not about unmasking. It's about warrantless access to raw data, directly to the communications.
-
So, what you are objecting to is FBI/CIA/NSA access to actual content of US citizen conversations with monitored foreign actors? Correct?
-
What is your definition of "monitored foreign actor"?
-
Ambassador Kislyak!!!!
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I work with them for a living, thank you. Now you are out of your element.
-
So you know what a search term is then? What happens when you use a search term?
-
Nothing nearly as mind-numbingly uninformative as your half of this convo, tbh.
-
Ah, go on. This is your expertise. Say you looked up "MikeFlynnATGMAIL" in your gmail inbox, and you'd have convos with him. What happens?
-
Well, since I'm not prohibited by federal law, I might read it, or might not.
-
Would it be masked?
-
Not in my own Gmail account. Which again, is about the same as a Yugo being a Ferrari. Both cars, right?
-
You see, when the FBI (or CIA, or NSA) do these searches, it comes up just like it does in your GMail account. So actually, all the same.
- 20 more replies
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.