zlacker

I know there’s no easy answer to the question, but how can you be sure we’re not in “will no one rid me of this turbulent priest” territory here?

>>Brendi+(OP)
Because we can all read?

All these installments have done is confirm over-and-over again that this was pretty much the normal and expected kind of interaction.

>>jacque+Q2
I can read too, what do you mean when you say that?

I’m not sure how institutions can say “no” to the FBI without feeling fear of retribution, nor do I want the FBI putting pressure on corporations to be something that’s “normal and expected”.

>>Brendi+D4
Twitter said 'no' to the feds on multiple occasions (as was pointed out upthread) and you can bet that if they had received an illegal request they would have balked at it.

I'm sure there was some give-and-take but on the whole what I've seen so far is absolutely par for the course, if you were to look into Facebook, Google, Microsoft and any of the ISPs and email providers you would find the exact same thing.

Both Twitter and the FBI were pretty open about the FBI having limited access to Twitters' firehose and that there was constant interaction between the two parties. You can add to that that if you were to look at this internationally and at the state level that such contacts can be expected to exist as well. Any assumption to the contrary is hopelessly naive.