That is, DOJ continues to use a bullshit number on FISC approvals, just like they have for four decades.
Show this thread
-
I'm not on the side of DOJ. I'm on the side of people who get spied on. Snowden revealed a few documents about what the FISC did approve. And that was IMHO clearly rubber stamp, and not “stringent”. Magistrate courts could be rubber stamp kangaroos, too.
You also appear to be on the side of willful ignorance. I've read probably 10,000 pages of FISC related docs that show you're wrong. Have you? No.
-
-
Do you know for which applications FISC has a different standard than criminal courts? Do you know for which application standard is higher at FISC?
-
Bulk surveillance is not appropriate in a criminal court. The suspect needs to be identified. A criminal court can't tell Verizon to hand over all meta data. FISC did. That's what I know, because that's public.
-
And...that's not relevant to the numbers we're discussing.
-
Probably not, because that metadata collection is just one order. Affecting everybody. But just one order. Maybe the number of orders alone are already a misleading figure, because it doesn't count the impact of the order.
-
Now you're showing outright illiteracy about which you speak. I'm done. Thanks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No, and I can't, and you know that. You could be right or BS me right in my face, and I can't know.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.