emptywheel

The reports are still very vague. After Snowden, they changed the metrics so it doesn't show up as 100% rubber stamp anymore. Unmodified approval rate down could also mean that they now insist on correct spelling. We don't know anything. The actual requests are all secret.

Hi. Did you read the post? If you did, and were literate, you'd know they didn't CHANGE the metrics, instead Congress mandated a SECOND one. So we have one that uses same metric used for decades, and a new more meaningful one.

Yes, I read that. Are you sure the new metric is more meaningful, or just trying to make them look less of a rubber stamp court? @Snowden revealed that it's a kangaroo court (100% approval). The new metrics makes it look not to be one. I don't really believe.

I'm sure the metric is more meaningful. Unlike Snowden I've read a great deal about the court itself, and areas where it is actually more stringent than magistrate courts. Why do you keep treating DOJ BS in good faith?

I'm not on the side of DOJ. I'm on the side of people who get spied on. Snowden revealed a few documents about what the FISC did approve. And that was IMHO clearly rubber stamp, and not “stringent”. Magistrate courts could be rubber stamp kangaroos, too.

You also appear to be on the side of willful ignorance. I've read probably 10,000 pages of FISC related docs that show you're wrong. Have you? No.

Do you know for which applications FISC has a different standard than criminal courts? Do you know for which application standard is higher at FISC?

Bulk surveillance is not appropriate in a criminal court. The suspect needs to be identified. A criminal court can't tell Verizon to hand over all meta data. FISC did. That's what I know, because that's public.