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
-
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.