> give the N.S.A. copies of internet messages that cross the international border and contain a search term that identifies foreigners

That's a pretty misleading way to state the criteria. A reader that doesn't know any better would assume that a message that is sent from within the USA to somewhere else within the USA, would already have been exempt from this program.

But everybody with a little bit of background knowledge, including the author, knows that internet packets are routed, cached and stored all over the planet without regard to international borders. Even a packet or message that has both endpoints on US soil is very likely to cross international borders at some point in its route, because that's how the internet works and these services' infrastructure.

Just like calling this a "major development". I mean really, is this defeat? Sunk the bar that low? Call it "highly unlikely", "unprecedented" or something like that if you want to highlight the fact how unusual it is that the NSA gives up a tiny crumb of its capabilities. Call it "promising" maybe if you want to be really optimistic about it (hah).

But in what universe is this a "major development", instead of a tiny insignifant drop in the ocean of the NSAs vast and total surveillance capabilities? Does anybody believe that they are now in any way subject to less surveillance than before? It's like lowering the speed limit by 0.1mph and calling it a "major development" for the safety of kids playing on the streets.

Here's another nice one:

> The inquiries were conducted for legitimate intelligence purposes, the official said, but under rules imposed by the intelligence court, analysts were not supposed to search for Americans’ information within that data set

So ... the inquiries were conducted for legitimate purposes, it's just that they were against the rules, is all. I'm not sure I'm familiar with this new interpretation of the word "legitimate".

No but seriously can anyone explain this line? If I'm being as favourable as I can possibly manage, I suppose they mean this: The purpose of the inquiries was legitimate, it's just performing them is not. So what does it mean if merely the purpose is legitimate? Did this official just try to let off these NSA-analysts because "the ends justified the means" ??

Not that it matters that much to me any way, because I am one of those filthy foreigners that doesn't have any right to any privacy whatsoever in the eyes of the NSA and a worryingly large percentage of US citizens cheering them on for that, because it is not them--ehm I mean because it is their job (if you don't think too hard about it). There's so many people arguing, many people who are otherwise very reasonable, that it's somehow okay to utterly violate people's privacy (on an unprecedented global scale) for no other reason than they are foreigners. No other reason. Being foreign is enough that you decided my private life is somehow not my own. And of course that my government is doing it too! Except that they don't have the budget or the unique position in internet infrastructure to violate privacy on such a global scale. But they do still try. And I won't let that slide or cheer them on for it either, just because they're doing it to "other" people.