Parallel construction is being investigated because it's probably not legal.[1] In the NSA's own words "If the intelligence community collects information purs

Parallel construction is being investigated because it's probably not legal.[1] In the NSA's own words "If the intelligence community collects information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking that is recognised as being evidence of a crime, [it] can disseminate that information to law enforcement, as appropriate." [1] [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-department-surveillance-dea http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-departm... There's two modes of operation, you seem to have the second in mind, and I am thinking of the first: 1: a. NSA collects American national's "information pursuant to a valid foreign intelligence tasking". (this may be illegal, violation of fourth amendment rights, no supreme court decision) b. NSA tip SOD (if 1. is illegal, then it follows it's illegal to pass on) c. SOD instruct police force to stop and search for 'traffic violation' at time and place, obscure evidence trail. (DOJ investigating if this is illegal) d. d:a) no evidence is found. d:b) evidence is found, parallel construction begins. 2: a. law enforcement agency DEA/IRS/SOD asks NSA to get foreign intelligence, because of investigation already underway. other steps as above. I take issue with this: "the goverment broke some rules to do their job (which so far I have not seen any evidence for)" The FISC found NSA overstepped their remit, broke the fourth amendment, announced that the FISC did not have sufficient oversight, and said that the NSA misrepresented facts repeatedly. The NSA initiate programs and depending how they feel about it present them to the FISC after the fact. In addition this contradicts what Obama said about there being no abuses. The only way that Obama could not be a liar here is if he did not know about it. Is Obama misinformed? In your own words: "the amount of collection here is trivial.", the government broke the law however 'trivially'. This is an admission on your part there is evidence and that you have seen it. You have not addressed LOVEINT. You seem to be missing how the LOVEINT stuff came to light, it was self reported by staffers, not uncovered by the NSA. Voluntary handover of information is not a check or a balance. Would you think the police were doing a good job if they only dealt with cases where the perpetrator made a statement on their own actions and turned themselves in without an investigation? Would you consider such behaviour a crackdown by the police? If there were sufficient checks, the NSA would know well before the culprit volunteered the information. In addition this contradicts what Alexander said about there being no abuses.