Or might it be that the nature of the craft changes?
I’ve found that writing a piece intended for an annotatable medium allows the author a little more latitude in really elaborating upon matters. In a conventional, linearly composed piece, the writer must subject all readers, regardless of their degrees of knowledge, to an exposition. However, with annotations, the writer can include lengthy expansions upon the text without requiring all readers to go that in-depth.
There is a craft to the annotation, just as there is a craft to the composition of traditional prose.
Of course, the entry of other annotators is another matter, and this appears to be Professor Bush’s principal concern. I will optimistically turn to Foucault and Barthes here and venture a theory that the diminution of the “original writer” and the proliferation of voices within a text is in accord with our postmodern circumstance.
This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.
Mostly simply, who is calling whom. What numbers you have called and who has called you.
Under the current program, the NSA receives the metadata from phone companies everyday. The agency keeps the data for five years and deletes it on a rolling basis. It was revealed, for instance, that Verizon must give the government information on its over 1 billion calls per day. The telecom giant is required to hand over the data on an “ongoing, daily basis.”
By law, the agency cannot mine the data until it has “reasonable and articulable suspicion” of a certain phone number’s association with a terrorist organization. But, of course, domestic Occupy-type, leftist protesters have been investigated as “terrorists,” so any leftist activist is perhaps somewhat warranted in suspecting undue surveillance of themselves or their associates.
The Senate Intelligence Committee recently found itself subject to CIA spying as the Committee neared the release of their investigation of CIA’s detention and interrogation program under President George W. Bush.
The controversy, which Feinstein charges is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, is yet another case of overreach and abuse under the Bush-Obama surveillance regimes, the very sort of abuse President Obama’s words here are supposed to mitigate.