Delivered-To: yuen.ni@nia.ts.gec Received from: 244.222.11.27 with SMTP id nd79196zl41; Received from: 222.196.11.27 with SMTP id bli107108d197; Received from: nlan14.nianticlabs.com (nlan14.nianticlabs.com [197.196.55.16]) by x10.nia.ts.gec with ESMTPS id qqvz.g197112q.10.17.12.48.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); by x10.nia.ts.gec with ESMTPS id qqvz.g197112q.10.17.12.48.46 Received-SPF: neutral (nia.ts.gec: 41.196.11.27 client-ip=41.196.11.27;) Authentication-Results: x10.nia.ts.gec; spf=neutral ; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@nianticlabs.com Message-ID:<zdli79107196b110.105244@nianticlabs.com> Received from: 107.197.55.16 with SMTP id ndezvq197101; From: 'Jay Phillips' <jay.phillips@nia.ts.gc> Reply-to: <jay.phillips@nia.ts.gc> Subject: Re: Unexpected portals To: Yuen Ni <yuen.ni@nia.ts.gec>, Henry Bowles <bowles@nianticlabs.com>, Ezekiel Calvin <zc@nianticlabs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary='803764553-354755170-9042804=:82381'--803764553-354755170-9042804=:82381 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I have an 885 asset near there. Jay Phillips "Henry Bowles" <bowles@nianticlabs.com> wrote: As you are all aware, several thousand previously unknown portals unexpectedly entered the XM scanner database this morning. I'm still trying to get a complete count. They are candidates that were identified as part of the NIA Super-ops plan to acquire a database of sensitive-identified portals. Our previous XM surveys were producing a very limited set of candidates, and from what I can gather, the quality of portals in this dataset is quite high. I am trying to figure out how this database expansion occurred without proper clearance. It is possible that ADA is prioritizing DB expansion over internal approval protocols. I do not have that answer right now, and I cannot rule out that an outside interference took place. What I do know is that the new portals appear to have started entering the DB in the vicinity of Rome, and spread outwards from there (attached). I understand that due to circumstances we have been working more on a need-to-know-basis, but when I start getting shut out of pathways of information, things like this happen. If avenues of data are closed off to me, I cannot be held responsible when I don't know the exact consequences of that data. bowles