If 702 has only been used in 8-10 prosecutions, and in no Chinese-related prosecutions, I'm sure we can just shut down FBI's access to it. Great! Problem solved. But that does not, in fact, reflect the reality. Which is why I use the words "parallel construction" or launder.
-
This is exactly what I said. Notice is actually broader than I suggested above ( I only mentioned prosecution of USP). If 702 is used in court, the defendant gets notice. You are saying they are not being given notice.
No. You said if a case came from 702 it had to be noticed in court. That is incorrect. Nor is it the standard. Of course if that happened we'd have 1000 of 702 notices rather than ... 8.
-
-
What I said is what the PCLOB statement says. How are you not getting that 702 gets noticed in court from that statement? What is the standard you believe applies?
-
Wait, you're working off PCLOB, not actual knowledge of any court cases? Also, no, that's not what PCLOB says. I could explain what happened w/the 8 defendants who got noticed, bc standard changed, but in perhaps just once case was it bc a suspect was first IDed via 702.
-
I'm referencing current std because that's relevant to 702 reauth - what we're talking about. I think you are missing the "derived from" part. I'm not sure if it is an honest mistake or willful blindness. The snark suggests the latter, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
-
So your suggestion is current standard, in which ZERO people are getting notice, is finally using the derived from language in better faith than the standard when a whopping 8 people were. This is not snark. It is disbelief you're saying this w/any experience or good faith.
-
And no, I'm not "willfully blind" to what the standard is supposed to be. I've written a bunch about it. But I also have covered the actual cases. You appear to be working off of a 3.5 year old document.
-
I noted that use authority for 702 is a pain. Why can't you believe few cases would be brought? You seem to put a lot of energy into being angry about something you just assume must be happening. At least, you haven't told me anything but assumptions. I was just trying to help.
-
I'm angry about people trying to DOJ-splain me with clearly false information, when I'm citing numerous cases showing you're wrong. You know, actual public record? And I'm trying to figure out whether you're unfamiliar with this or lying.
-
You haven't cited numerous cases. You said you know of cases. That's not citing. I can't respond to information you keep to yourself.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.