News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional. Parent comment

Re:October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA Surveillance Unc... by sitkack on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @04:16PM (#6253044)
homework assignment, using the same typeface find valid strings (names of ISPs etc) that fit within the redacted blocks. Extra credit for using an NLP toolkit to ensure grammatical correctness, double extra credit for using the same grammar rules as the document.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA Surveillance Unc... by asperous on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @05:13PM (#6253350)
It's not hard to guess honestly, especially with Quest getting those NSLs and the ceo getting fired, and ATT "secret rooms". They redacted them for legal reasons so companies can't sue ATT/Quest/etc. for "federally documented proof of violation of privacy contracts." Though that would be hilarious if it happened.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA Surveillance Unc... by bobwaycott on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @08:40PM (#6254329)
Haven't these companies already received retroactive immunity by act of Congress?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion Holding NSA Surveillance Unc... by asperous on Wednesday August 21, 2013 @08:47PM (#6254358)
That may be true; another reason that they might be redacted is the "national security concern" of people (aka terrorists) avoiding those ISPs.
[ Parent | on HN ]