Except FBI, whose practices are the ones of greatest concern, is judged on other things. Including: 1) arrests, especially terrorism ones 2) informants recruitedhttps://twitter.com/john_sipher/status/951814369897263104 …
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
This seems to be a basic misunderstanding by
@john_sipher that the people doing the collecting are 1) not doing it in a narrow manner and 2) more importantly, are not the only ones with access and ability to use2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque @emptywheel
Agree that the possibility of abuse is serious. The question, it seems to me, is how far do we go to protect against something that rarely ever happens. Sensible and strict precautions makes sense but there is a balance between supporting he mission and avoiding abuse. Not easy
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @john_sipher @JakeLaperruque
We don't know whether it happens at FBI bc they've been doing less and less auditing of queries. https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/11/30/hype-how-fbi-decided-searching-702-content-was-the-least-intrusive-means/ … Plus, the Tor exception is relatively new.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
There are at least two cases involving incidental collection on Chinese-Americans -- Xiaoxiang Xi and Keith Gartenlaub and spouse -- that raise serious concerns.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Moreover, since DOJ has never complied with notice provision in 702 we don't have a way of tracking the real impact.
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.