This is really disingenuoushttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/08/that_spying_program_that_absolutely_had_to_be_reauthorized_before_the_end_of_the_year_how_about_april_instead_ask_spy_agencies/ …
Show this thread
-
First: this isn't a new theory. It's been floated since at least Spring. Every time it comes up folks say "oh cute theory", and then, thinking it through, discover why it's still effectively a four-month shutdown during that period
Show this thread
Are you remotely familiar with the PAA-FAA transition? You might want to be before you say it's a cute theory. It's a cute theory DOJ already has precedent for in FISC.
-
-
Yes, I am. I'm also aware that telco upstream providers in 2008 concerned about immunity isn't remotely similar to technology companies in 2017 where reputation is their concern.
-
No. Then you're not, at least not the part I'm talking about. Bc I'm talking abt precisely those very same tech companies who operated under PAA certs approved in 2007 well beyond the expiration of PAA. And the court repeatedly said that's how it'd work.
-
Yahoo was SUING but still complied with 2007 PAA certs past the time PAA expired.
-
And the principle of grandfathered certs has been reiterated over and over. This is not "cute" w/in FISC precedent in the least. It is ... boring.
-
We're not talking about grandfathered certs, which are valid not because of FISC precedent but by affirmative law (e.g. FAA 2008 404(a)(1)). Not a similar issue to whether certs are valid during a sunset gap.
-
Matt. Yes. I know. I also know (and you don't, apparently, but that's not stopping you from treating me as if I don't) that the PAA certs remained binding after such time as PAA expired. No provider complained, not even the one that was in a big fat suit challenging the law.
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.