| If you read the very next sentence after your first quote, you will find: "The Justice Department allowed the agency to monitor only addresses and “cybersignatures” — patterns associated with computer intrusions — that it could tie to foreign governments." This is surveiling foreign governments' data in the US only when they are hacking Americans. It is a mighty stretch to call this domestic surveillance when the surveilled are very specifically foreign governments (foreign non-governmental hackers are not included). > "a total of 17 government agencies will have access to Americans' data without requiring a warrant" If you actually read the rest of the article, they are required to filter out data of Americans anywhere and data of anybody in the US without a warrant, just like the NSA is required to. There is no expansion of domestic surveillance. The only change is that these other agencies get direct access to the taps, but they are subject to the same laws as the NSA. > Except for the whole constant gathering of new types of data from an increasing (one could say "expanding") number of sources since Obama came into office... Every single one of those sources was only allowed to provide data on foreigners living outside the US. This is explicitly not domestic surveillance. > I've so read/seen several interviews and talks with Snowden, and even read his book. He seems pretty okay with what Greenwald came away with. Snowden very clearly didn't understand PRISM when he leaked it. According to Gellman, Snowden seemed most intent on exposing PRISM, asking Gellman for a guarantee that all the PRISM slides would be published within 72 hours, believing it to be a domestic surveillance program. It wasn't. A well-intentioned dummy can make rash decisions and end up becoming a Russian stooge. Snowden is the poster-child for the Be Cool, Stay In School program. |