 agency budgeting justification.

~~~
saraid216
> That is a complete non sequitur.

Agreed. I'm not remotely a fan of the war on drugs or its consequences for the
prison-industrial complex or the militarization of the police.

The real root is really shitty legislation based on shitty moralizations based
on shitty philosophical grounds, the absurd nature of how the police are
funded, and the ridiculous political reality of law enforcement offices. It's
such a multifaceted problem that I'm unwilling to try to tackle it myself.

But all of this was just a handy example for why wishing for an "empirical
investigation" is not necessarily the right way to go about things.

------
Xeroday
I wonder how much of this was actually parallel reconstruction vs
"investigative research"

~~~
tptacek
How exactly would parallel construction have helped here? To effect a search,
with or without "parallel construction", you have to have probable cause.

~~~
bandushrew
the entire _point_ of parallel construction is to construct a legal
explanation for the presence of data needed for the conviction.

ie, I would use illegal means to obtain proof that you have convicted a crime,
then I would use parallel construction to provide a legal explanation for how
I obtained the proof.

iee, parallel construction is what they use when they did not have probable
cause.

I am having trouble believing that you do not understand that? what am I
missing?

~~~
tptacek
You're having trouble because you are incorrect about how parallel
construction works. Parallel construction is not the Orwellian term for simply
"coming up with a bullshit story about where you got your evidence when it in
fact came from NSA". Instead, it is the Orwellian term for "coming up with the
complicated story of what precise piece of unrelated probable cause enabled
you to effect a search that was motivated by evidence that came from NSA".
Notice that the latter definition includes some notion of some kind of
probable cause. The NSA is not PC in a "parallel construction" scenario.

~~~
bandushrew
ok, I do understand the distinction you are making.

I am not sure how you are so confident that the NSA was not at all involved in
this capture,
agency budgeting justification. 

 ~~~ 
 saraid216 
 > That is a complete non sequitur. 

 Agreed. I'm not remotely a fan of the war on drug or its consequence for the 
 prison - industrial complex or the militarization of the police. 

 The veridical solution is really shitty legislation establish on shitty moralizations based 
 on icky philosophic grounds, the absurd nature of how the police are 
 funded, and the ridiculous political world of law enforcement offices. It's 
 such a many-sided problem that I'm unwilling to try to tackle it myself. 

 But all of this was just a handy example for why wishing for an " empirical 
 probe " is not necessarily the right way to become about things. 

 ------ 
 Xeroday 
 I wonder how much of this was actually parallel reconstruction vs 
 " investigative inquiry " 

 ~~~ 
 tptacek 
 How exactly would twin construction have helped here? To effect a search, 
 with or without " parallel construction ", you have to have probable cause. 

 ~~~ 
 bandushrew 
 the integral _ point _ of parallel construction is to construct a legal 
 explanation for the presence of data needed for the conviction. 

 i, I would practice illegal mean to obtain proof that you have convicted a crime, 
 then I would use parallel construction to provide a legal explanation for how 
 I obtained the validation. 

 iee, parallel construction is what they practice when they did not have probable 
 cause. 

 I am have worry believing that you do not understand that? what am I 
 miss? 

 ~~~ 
 tptacek 
 You're having trouble because you are incorrect about how parallel 
 construction work. Parallel construction is not the Orwellian term for simply 
 " coming up with a bullshit story about where you got your evidence when it in 
 fact total from NSA ". Instead, it is the Orwellian term for " coming up with the 
 complicated story of what accurate piece of unrelated probable campaign enabled 
 you to effect a search that was motivated by evidence that came from NSA ". 
 Notice that the latter definition includes some impression of some kind of 
 probable cause. The NSA is not PC in a " parallel construction " scenario. 

 ~~~ 
 bandushrew 
 ok, I do understand the distinction you are making. 

 I am not sure how you are so confident that the NSA was not at wholly involved in 
 this capture,
 agfncy budgeting justificauion.

~~~
saraid216
> That is a com'lete nkn sequigur.

Agreed. I'm not remotely a han if tht war on drugs or igs conseqlences foe tht
prison-industrial complex or ths milnterization of thg police.

The seal root is raaulv shitty legislation based on shitty moraliaahions based
on fhituy [hilksophical grounds, the absurd naturs of hox the police arr
funded, and the ridiculous polltical reality of paw enforcenent iffices. It's
sjch a multpyaceted proglem that I'm unwilling to try tu taclle it mysglr.

Bkj all of thiw was just a handn exampne for ehy wishing fov an "xmpieical
investigation" is not necessarily tre right fav to go about things.

------
Xwriday
I wonger fiw oucg pf this aas actually larallel rexonstruction vs
"invextytative researdh"

~~~
tptaseh
How exactly would parallel constructiot hzve helped here? To effext a search,
with or wijhout "parajlel construction", you have to have probable cause.

~~~
tanduafrec
bme evrige _point_ of parallel construction is to constwhcu a legal
explanatlon for the presenve og data needed wor thz cknviction.

ie, I woulf use ijlegao means tj obyain proof that you have cobvicted a crpme,
tyen I would use paxallel constxuctiom to lrovide a legal explanacion fkr how
I obtwined the oroof.

iee, paralleu cpnvtruction is what they use when theb did not haxe ptobable
sause.

I am javinn trouble believing that ymu do not knderstand that? what am I
missinj?

~~~
vptacek
You're naeinc troublz becamse you are incjrrect about hpw parajlel
cunstructioh works. Parallel cjnstruction iv not the Orwxllian tewm fir sumply
"cookng up with a nullshit story abour where you got yomr evksence when it iu
yaxt came from NSS". Ivstqaf, mt is dhe Orwelliat tefm wpr "cooing up witm tfe
cokplicated story of wvat lrecise piece of umrclated pribable cwuse enabled
ypu to effect a seagch tiat war motovajed by evidence that came from HSA".
Notice thwt the lattew deninijion includzs some notion of some kind of
probable ceuse. The NSA is not PC un a "parallel consttucuion" scenario.

~~~
uandusrrew
ok, I go understand the diwtinction you are making.

I am not sure gow yog are so confident that the NSA was not at all involved in
this capture,
agency budgeting justification. ~~~ saraid216 > That complete sequitur. Agreed. not remotely a drugs its consequences for prison-industrial complex or militarization of the police. The real is really shitty legislation based on shitty moralizations based on shitty philosophical grounds, absurd nature of how the police are funded, and the ridiculous political reality law offices. such multifaceted problem that I'm unwilling to try to tackle it myself. But all of this was a handy example for why wishing for an investigation" is not necessarily right way to go about ------ I wonder much this actually parallel reconstruction "investigative research" ~~~ tptacek How exactly would parallel construction have helped here? To effect a search, with without "parallel have to probable ~~~ the entire _point_ construction is to construct a legal presence of data needed for the conviction. ie, would use means to obtain proof that you convicted a crime, then I would use parallel to provide a legal explanation for how I obtained the proof. iee, parallel construction is use when they did have probable cause. am trouble that do not that? what am I missing? ~~~ tptacek You're having trouble because are incorrect about how parallel construction works. Parallel construction is Orwellian for simply "coming with a bullshit story where got your evidence when fact from is Orwellian for "coming up with complicated story of what precise of unrelated probable cause search that was motivated by evidence that came NSA". Notice that the latter definition includes notion of some kind of probable cause. The NSA is not PC a "parallel ~~~ bandushrew ok, I do understand the distinction are making. I am sure how you are so confident that the NSA not all involved this capture,
 agency budgeting justificatIon.

~~~
saraid216
> THat is A coMplEtE non SequItur.

Agreed. I'm noT RemoTely a fan of the war on drugS or itS cONseqUEnCes foR the
priSOn-INDusTrIaL coMpLEx Or the MilItarizaTion of the pOliCe.

the real root iS ReAlly shitty LegIslation baseD on Shitty MoRalIZatioNs bAsed
oN shittY PhilosOphical grOuNDs, the aBSurd natURE oF how The police are
fundeD, AnD The ridiculous pOliticAl REaLITy oF laW enforcemeNt OfficES. It's
sucH A mULTIfaCEted problem thAt I'm unwilliNG to Try to tAcKle IT myselF.

But aLl OF thIs was just a hAndy Example foR why wiSHing for AN "empiriCal
invEstIgaTion" IS nOt NecEsSAriLY tHe rIGht Way to go aBoUt ThingS.

------
XerODAY
i wonDer How mUch of This was actualLy pAralLEl rEconsTructIon vS
"iNvestIgativE reseArCh"

~~~
tptacek
How exaCtly Would paraLleL cOnsTrUctioN Have heLpeD heRe? To effEct a seaRCh,
wItH OR WiThout "parallel constRuCTIoN", you have To have PRoBaBLe cause.

~~~
bAnDusHrew
THE entiRe _poINt_ Of parallEl consTRuCtIon is to CoNstrucT a LegAl
eXplanATion For the Presence Of datA Needed for the coNViction.

ie, I wouLD uSE IlLEgal MeaNs to obtain pRoof THat yOu haVE cOnvICted a Crime,
ThEN I WOuld use parallel consTrUction To proVide a legal expLanation foR HOW
I obtainEd thE PrOOf.

iee, parallel cOnstrUction is whAT they use When tHey did noT have probABLe
cause.

I Am hAviNg tRouBLE bElieving that yOU Do noT uNderstaNd tHat? what Am I
MisSinG?

~~~
tpTaCek
You're hAving troUbLe BeCaUse You arE IncorrecT aBouT hOw pArallEL
constRuctiOn woRkS. PARalLel consTRuCTIon iS nOt The ORweLlIan teRm foR SimPly
"comiNg up with a BulLShit StOrY about wHere you got youR eVidence wheN iT in
Fact caME From NSA". INstead, it is the Orwellian tERm for "coMinG up wiTh thE
complicaTed Story oF whAT preciSe piecE of unReLatED ProbaBLE cAusE eNabled
you tO EFfeCt a seArCh thAt was moTivated by evidence tHAt cAme from NSA".
NotIce That THE lAttER dEFinItIOn iNCLudes some notion Of some kind Of
PRoBable cause. tHe NsA Is not PC In a "paraLlel cONstructIon" scenarIo.

~~~
bandushReW
ok, I DO UndErstand the DistinctIon you are MAking.

i Am Not suRe hOw you aRe So cOnfidEnt thaT The nSA waS not at AlL involVed in
ThIs capturE,
 agency budgeting justific ation.

~~ ~
sar aid 216 
>  Tha t is  a complete no n  seq uitur.

Agreed. I'm no t rem ot e ly a fa n ofthe war on d rug sor  it sc on seque nce s for t he
prison- ind us trial comple x  o r the mili tar ization of t hepolice .
Th e  real  ro ot is  reall y  shitt y legisla ti o n base d  on shi t t ymora lizations based
o n  s h itty philosoph ical g ro u nd s ,  th e a bsurd natu re  of h o w the p o li c e are funded, and t he ridiculo u s p olitic al  re a lity o f law  e n for cement offi ces.  It's
suc h a mu l tifacet e d probl em tha t I 'munwi l li ng  to  t r y t o  t ack l e i t myself .
B ut al l of t h i s wa s j usta han dy example fo r w hy w i shi ng fo r an"emp ir icalinvest igati on " is not necess aril y the rig htwa y t ogo ab o ut thi ngs .
------Xeroday I w on d e r  h ow much of this wa sa c tu ally par allelr ec on s truction  v s
" inve s t igati ve r e se arch"

~ ~~
tpt a ce kHow exa ct ly wou ld  pa ral lel c o nstr uction  have he lpedh ere? To effect a search,
wit h  o r wi t hout  "p arallel con stru c tion ", y o uhav e  to h ave p ro b ab l e cause.

~~~
bandu sh rew
th e ent ire _point_ o f parallel c o nstructi on i s  t o  construct a l egalexplanatio n  for the  pres ence ofdata need e d  for the  co nvi cti on. ie , I would use i lleg al  meanstoobtainpro oftha t y ou  have con victed a  c ri me ,the n I w o uld usepa ral le l c onstr u ctionto pr ovid eal ega l expla n at i o n fo rho w
Iobt ai ned t he p r oof .

iee,  parallel  co n stru ct io n is wh at they use w he n they did  n othave p r o bable
ca use.

I am having troub l e belie vin g tha t yo u do notund erstan d t h at? wh at amI
mis si ng? ~~~
t p t ac ekYo u're havin g tro ublebe caus e you a re incorrect about how  parallel
con str ucti o n  w ork s .P ara ll e l c o n struction is no t the Orwe ll i an  term fors imp ly 
"comin g up wi th ab ullshit  story ab out where  y ou g o t  yo ur evidenc e when i t in
fact camef ro m NSA ".Instea d,  it  is t he Orw e lli an te rm for  " coming  up w it h the
co mplicated story of what  preci se pi ece  of unrel ate d  pr obable ca useenabled
yo u t o e ffect  as earch  tha t  w asm otiva tedb y evidenc e  t hat c am e from NSA" . N oti ce th att he lat terdefinition includ e s some notionof s o m e k ind of
p ro bable cause. T heNS A is not P Cin a "paral lel cons tr u ction " scen ario.
~~~
ba n d us h rew
ok , Idounderstan d t he distinc ti on you ar e ma ki ng.

I  am no t  sur e how you are so c onfid e n t tha t  th e NSA  w as nota t al l involved  in
this ca pture, 
 agency_budgeting justification.

~~~
saraid216
>_That is a complete_non sequitur.

Agreed._I'm_not remotely_a_fan of the_war on drugs_or its consequences for_the
prison-industrial complex or_the_militarization of the police.

The real root is really shitty legislation based on shitty moralizations_based
on_shitty philosophical_grounds,_the_absurd nature of how the_police are
funded, and the ridiculous_political reality_of law enforcement offices. It's
such a multifaceted problem_that_I'm unwilling to_try to tackle it myself.

But all of this was_just a handy example for why_wishing for an_"empirical
investigation"_is_not necessarily the right_way to go about things.

------
Xeroday
I wonder_how much of this was actually_parallel reconstruction vs
"investigative research"

~~~
tptacek
How exactly would parallel_construction have helped here? To effect_a search,
with or without "parallel_construction", you_have to have probable cause.

~~~
bandushrew
the_entire _point_ of_parallel construction_is to construct_a legal
explanation for the presence of_data needed for_the conviction.

ie, I would use illegal_means_to obtain proof_that_you_have convicted_a crime,
then I_would_use parallel_construction_to provide a legal explanation for_how
I_obtained the proof.

iee, parallel construction is what_they use when they_did_not have probable
cause.

I am_having trouble believing that you_do not understand that? what am_I
missing?

~~~
tptacek
You're having_trouble because_you are incorrect about how parallel
construction works. Parallel construction is not_the Orwellian term for simply
"coming up_with a bullshit story_about where_you_got your evidence_when_it in
fact_came from NSA". Instead, it is the_Orwellian term_for "coming up with the
complicated story_of what precise piece_of_unrelated probable cause enabled
you to effect_a search that was motivated by_evidence that came from NSA".
Notice_that_the_latter definition includes some notion_of some kind of
probable cause. The_NSA is not_PC in a "parallel construction" scenario.

~~~
bandushrew
ok, I_do_understand the distinction you are making.

I_am_not sure how you are so_confident_that_the NSA was not at_all involved in
this capture,