> Parallel construction does NOT allow law enforcement to
I think we're beyond this point now. There is no "what we are allowed to do" vs "what we are not allowed to do". From what we have seen in the past few months, it's now a matter of "do what we want to do" and if we can't do it then we'll interpret the law.
> (a) Introduce evidence that is the product of NSA surveillance
> (b) Literally manufacture probable cause to effect a search to generate introducible evidence
There is probably even a team at the NSA whose sole purpose is parallel construction!
>There is probably even a team at the NSA whose sole purpose is parallel construction!
There is, this was covered in the initial release regarding Parallel construction.
It's always interesting to me that while American tech companies are getting grilled and attempting to out PR each other with the recent releases of more detailed (three year old) reporting information, things like parallel construction and the fact that Israeli intelligence agencies have direct access to raw / un-minimized domestic wiretapping data straight off the Narus devices that capture it
Well, no, first you discuss the idea in a Working Group mailing list, which is like HN – you get lots of great negative feedback. When you have fixed all your initial bugs, you write a draft RFC. With which implementers can create independent implementations. If there are not anyone willing to do this, this is a sign that the idea is not wanted enough, i.e. not widely useful enough to warrant an RFC in the first place. The implementers will find bugs. You fix those, and discuss some more. Eventually, you, the mailing list and the implementers will be happy with the standard, at which point you move to have the RFC published as an official RFC.
Anyhow, this is all for a “Standard track” RFC. An “Informational” or “Experimental” RFC has no such requirement, and can basically be submitted by anyone for anything.
Did your post have to go through some sort of internal review before you were allowed to publish it? I find it weird that you're allowed to blog, let alone blog about the NSA.
See bottom of post: This essay was deemed UNCLASSIFIED and approved for public release by the NSA's office of Pre-Publication Review on 11/21/2013 (PP 14-0081).
Hmmm... where do we find out about all the CLASSIFIED blog posts? NSA internal forums? Any place where there's a summary of these reviews as metadata, hence leaving the content "CLASSIFIED" ? Who is watching the watchers?
The kids of today not tomorrow. At least mine. They are absolutely mystified in the rare event we watch something "live" that Dad can't just fast forward thru the commercials.
The article doesn't break it down by demographics, but everything I've read on the subject shows an enormous generational split. The kids have already abandoned cable, so unless they somehow change their habits the clock is ticking on broadcast television.
I think we're beyond this point now. There is no "what we are allowed to do" vs "what we are not allowed to do". From what we have seen in the past few months, it's now a matter of "do what we want to do" and if we can't do it then we'll interpret the law.
> (a) Introduce evidence that is the product of NSA surveillance
> (b) Literally manufacture probable cause to effect a search to generate introducible evidence
There is probably even a team at the NSA whose sole purpose is parallel construction!