emptywheel

3rd time - not discussing cases. As applied means what you believe it to be based on the low number of cases w/notice of which you are aware. But, as previously noted, you are right about everything, so we're good here. I hope you will join me in prayer for Brady's throwing hand.

So you want me to discuss cases (which I have, to which you haven't responded, or acknowledged) but you won't bc doing so would make it clear you HAVE used 702 in a case that wasn't noticed. Fair enough. The current standard is no one is getting notice. Zero.

Cool. I'm actually a stay-at-home mom of 12 and made all this stuff up, so it all worked out. Have a nice night!

Your response to me discussing cases and you not was to suggest I was accusing you of making it all up. Not actually what I've said at all. I'm just someone on the Intertoobz who can count to 8 which seems to be more than DOJ transparency can handle.

Bottom line is that although you say you're not accusing DOJ of lying, that's exactly what you are doing (see transparency comment). I can't vouch for today's DOJ, but the DOJ I knew recently followed the derived from standard. I can't make you trust your government. Your choice.

Bottom line is, I'm saying DOJ parallel constructs, which Bob Litt has told me *quite proudly* they do. That's not lying. I'm also saying there's good reason to believe standards in CT cases are different than CI cases.

Again, if DOJ has only ever used 702 in 8+2 cases (or has instead adopted secret notice on a wider scale, which is a problem unto itself), then we can simply shut down FBI's access bc it's not all that useful.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. I already told you prosecution is not the only goal of intel collection. And now I am really done because you are very confident in your opinions and I don't really care if you believe me or your government. Have a nice night.