> Parallel construction can be used in courtroom cases to put people away.
This isn't how parallel construction works.
Parallel construction doesn't invent a crime. Parallel construction suggests a direction of investigation that results in a clean chain of evidence to convict of an actual crime that happened.
An illegal surveillance tap of someone confessing to a murder is inadmissible evidence, but suggesting that the police go to some coordinates and take a look around whereupon they find a shallow grave with a body in it, from which they then get your DNA from fingernails is not because the evidence was discovered by legal means (namely, plain sight doctrine).
Which has an additional wrinkle to your hypothesis: predictive algorithms trained off publicly available data theorizing you committed a crime convict you not because the evidence is illegal (because it wouldn't be in the first case) but because they located through legal means where to find the evidence.
All of which is a long way to say that parallel construction is used inaccurately as a boogeyman for being framed by the government, which is what is explicitly is not: because if the government wants to actually just frame you, they'll go ahead and just plant a gun on you like the cops normally do and wait for the justice system to ignore it.
I am suggesting that an AI can easily invent plausible-sounding scenarios by which the government lawyers (falsely) explain that you actually did a crime, and parallel construction can be used to explain how "they" found out about it.
Again: with what evidence? You wouldn't have any if you simply invented the crime. If you're going to invent the crime then the evidence chain can start wherever you want - "oh look we found the murder weapon in their front yard where they dropped it after killing the victim in the house and fleeing".
And as noted: a predictive AI model trained off publicly available data wouldn't be the sort of thing you need to keep secret - it just also isn't actually evidence either. But no one's going to question "the AI said it might've happened, so we went to the location it told us too and look at all this evidence we just found lying around there".
This isn't how parallel construction works.
Parallel construction doesn't invent a crime. Parallel construction suggests a direction of investigation that results in a clean chain of evidence to convict of an actual crime that happened.
An illegal surveillance tap of someone confessing to a murder is inadmissible evidence, but suggesting that the police go to some coordinates and take a look around whereupon they find a shallow grave with a body in it, from which they then get your DNA from fingernails is not because the evidence was discovered by legal means (namely, plain sight doctrine).
Which has an additional wrinkle to your hypothesis: predictive algorithms trained off publicly available data theorizing you committed a crime convict you not because the evidence is illegal (because it wouldn't be in the first case) but because they located through legal means where to find the evidence.
All of which is a long way to say that parallel construction is used inaccurately as a boogeyman for being framed by the government, which is what is explicitly is not: because if the government wants to actually just frame you, they'll go ahead and just plant a gun on you like the cops normally do and wait for the justice system to ignore it.