3 ms·

Except, you didn't. None of your previous references make clear what the reference you just added now does which is that the minimization procedures allow for

Except, you didn't. None of your previous references make clear what the reference you just added now does which is that the minimization procedures allow for retention and dissemination of __non-foreign intelligence__ information which is evidence of __ordinary crimes__. I can see in your previous comment where that might have been what you meant but leaving out the keywords I emphasized is cause for confusion. In any case, arguing over whether or not the content of this statute is "news" is just a distraction. The EFF is challenging this statute and its application as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Despite the amicus agreeing at least in part, the court decided to uphold the statute and to continue allowing warrantless querying for ordinary crimes. News or not, this is cause for concern and I applaud the EFF in its efforts to do something about it.

DannyBee 11y ago
If you read the opinion, instead of the PR, it makes clear exactly what I said, with citations and everything. So I'm just going to assume you didn't bother to read it. The EFF has done literally nothing here except the press release and blaming a court that already took the EFF's position once and got beat down for it. I don't applaud them when they know this, and write a press release blaming the court, instead of complaining how hamstrung they are by precedent. This is not effective advocacy in and way, shape, or form.
- chishaku 11y ago
  > it makes clear exactly what I said It does make clear what you tried to say. Leaving out keywords makes it hard to have a productive conversation. > This is not effective advocacy in and way, shape, or form. Thanks to the EFF, among others, we have access to secret rulings by secret courts, something that shouldn't even exist in this country. When the court upholds legal precedent and current statutes to allow warrantless querying of indiscriminately collected data by the FBI for ordinary crimes, many concerned citizens and casual observers would like to know about it. Again, more thanks to the EFF. While it seems to be your focus here and elsewhere on this thread, I'm not interested in debating whether these rulings amount to "news" or "PR" opportunities for the EFF. If you do have alternative sources for info on FISC, its rulings and other legal apparatus involved in trampling Fourth Amendment rights, I'd be glad to check them out.
  - DannyBee 10y ago
    "Thanks to the EFF, among others, we have access to secret rulings by secret courts, something that shouldn't even exist in this country. " Let's be 100% super clear here. This is not thanks to the EFF in any way, shape, or form. To claim otherwise is to simply deny history. "While it seems to be your focus here and elsewhere on this thread, I'm not interested in debating whether these rulings amount to "news" or "PR" opportunities for the EFF." Earlier, and here, you seem super-interested in fawning over the EFF at every possible opportunity. So i guess i'll just say that i'm not interested in watching you white knight for an organization that loves to pat itself on the back for other people's accomplishments. The EFF does good for sure, but like most advocacy based organizations they have to make themselves appear effective to get funding, and they often do that by making themselves look like they are more seriously involved in good outcomes than they really are.

DannyBee 11y ago

If you read the opinion, instead of the PR, it makes clear exactly what I said, with citations and everything. So I'm just going to assume you didn't bother to read it. The EFF has done literally nothing here except the press release and blaming a court that already took the EFF's position once and got beat down for it. I don't applaud them when they know this, and write a press release blaming the court, instead of complaining how hamstrung they are by precedent. This is not effective advocacy in and way, shape, or form.

chishaku 11y ago
> it makes clear exactly what I said It does make clear what you tried to say. Leaving out keywords makes it hard to have a productive conversation. > This is not effective advocacy in and way, shape, or form. Thanks to the EFF, among others, we have access to secret rulings by secret courts, something that shouldn't even exist in this country. When the court upholds legal precedent and current statutes to allow warrantless querying of indiscriminately collected data by the FBI for ordinary crimes, many concerned citizens and casual observers would like to know about it. Again, more thanks to the EFF. While it seems to be your focus here and elsewhere on this thread, I'm not interested in debating whether these rulings amount to "news" or "PR" opportunities for the EFF. If you do have alternative sources for info on FISC, its rulings and other legal apparatus involved in trampling Fourth Amendment rights, I'd be glad to check them out.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "Thanks to the EFF, among others, we have access to secret rulings by secret courts, something that shouldn't even exist in this country. " Let's be 100% super clear here. This is not thanks to the EFF in any way, shape, or form. To claim otherwise is to simply deny history. "While it seems to be your focus here and elsewhere on this thread, I'm not interested in debating whether these rulings amount to "news" or "PR" opportunities for the EFF." Earlier, and here, you seem super-interested in fawning over the EFF at every possible opportunity. So i guess i'll just say that i'm not interested in watching you white knight for an organization that loves to pat itself on the back for other people's accomplishments. The EFF does good for sure, but like most advocacy based organizations they have to make themselves appear effective to get funding, and they often do that by making themselves look like they are more seriously involved in good outcomes than they really are.