[logn]

There was some sarcasm in my comment above and I didn't fully detail what I meant.

The point was that something doesn't become ok just because it's targeted at non-citizens or the targets are more limited than simply everyone. (Unless other context can justify it... but we're being kept in the dark). It's still dragnet surveillance. Similarly torture is wrong and no amount of "targeting" can change that. So I think there's a disconnect in people who oppose mass surveillance but approve of this. I presume many people ok with this malware are opposed to torture; it wasn't to be taken literally.

[LLWM]

Surveillance is situationally justifiable. Torture is not. This isn't a complex problem.

[logn]

I think that surveillance and dragnet surveillance are fundamentally different and not comparable.

[LLWM]

If so, then it's hard to imagine how you could distinguish between those in such a way that labels the methods described in the article as dragnet surveillance, rather than non-dragnet.