4 ms·
I imagine the intelligence community would try to interpret it as narrowly as possible, ie just the literal URLs you visited and terms you sent to Google.
by advisedwang 6y ago
I imagine the intelligence community would try to interpret it as narrowly as possible, ie just the literal URLs you visited and terms you sent to Google.
- twicetwice 6y agoI'm assuming you're being sarcastic...
- kitotik 6y agoIs this sarcasm? Do members of the intelligence community have a history of wanting less information than they can get?
- mcny 6y ago> Do members of the intelligence community have a history of wanting less information than they can get? No, the idea is to limit the scope of what requires a warrant.
- thephyber 6y agoYour logic is inverse. The thing at question was an amendment to add additional proof for access to "internet browsing and search history" data, so if the "intelligence community" defines that term as narrowly as possible, (assuming the "USA FREEDOM Act", the bill which was to be amended, is renewed) then the potential future restriction is applied to fewer data points.
- coronadisaster 6y agoYou must be kidding? the only time they are looking only at "meta" data is when they don't have the (mental/physical) capacity to analyze the rest... look at this for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read-your-email-2013-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/when-can-the-government-read... (they can read any emails that are older than 6 months without a warrant.... since 1986, if they are stored on a 3rd party server)
- thephyber 6y agoYou misunderstand both what your parent's intention was and what is being interpreted in a narrow fashion. The amendment would add a new burden for whitelisted data points. Your parent was saying that the "intelligence community" would likely play legal definition games to retain the most data points which don't have a new higher burden of proof.