emptywheel

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.

And there are a long list of defendants who clearly were but who never got 702 notice, including some for whom the warrant for content was obtained a year into the case.

Say, can you tell me where you got your belief that FISA is dealt with in the CIPA process?

CIPA is the process by which any FISA info would be handled by the Ct. I just referenced CIPA because if you have seen any FISA info in a trial, it went through that process. I assume you haven't seen any suppression motion-related briefs.

Let me give you some apparently belated advice. Please don't make mistaken assumptions about what I've seen. It's a bad look for you.

I've made no assumptions. I've asked you question and you made declaratory statements in response. You seem to be assuming that I don't know what I am talking about, but that's fine. More snark.

Have you ever used 702 in a case? Bc I've talked to the lawyers who've defended it. And covered those cases, in varying degrees of detail, personally.

I don't discuss classified info. I hope nobody else did. I have been discussing the use rules & cited PCLOB because it's not classified. You referred to things you know (not what they are) & suggested DOJ is lying. That seems wrong to me. But I guess everyone has their thing.