> These slides aren't an example of skirting domestic laws - they're examples of expanding collection on the NSA's target through partnering with other countries.

The NSA and Israel trade information about each other's citizens, circumventing domestic law. [1] [2]

"The memorandum of agreement between the N.S.A. and its Israeli counterpart covers virtually all forms of communication, including but not limited to “unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content.”"

Have you seen the memorandum between Israel and the US? [+]

Before you go excusing the memorandum as not being a backchannel, remember that Hoover famously left an official paper trail of "I'm sorry, but the information you requested can not be served without a court order" but would serve the memo to those who made an illegal request by sending a trusted FBI agent who also had a copy of requested documents.

Australia spied on US law firms and handed the data to the NSA (with no court/warrant process in US). [3] [4]

The NSA will spy on others' citizens for them and share results. [5] [6]

"Britain's GCHQ intelligence agency can spy on anyone but British nationals, the NSA can conduct surveillance on anyone but Americans, and Germany's BND (Bundesnachrichtendienst) foreign intelligence agency can spy on anyone but Germans. That's how a matrix is created of boundless surveillance in which each partner aids in a division of roles.
They exchanged information. And they worked together extensively. That applies to the British and the Americans, but also to the BND, which assists the NSA in its Internet surveillance." [7]

"NSA 'offers intelligence to British counterparts to skirt UK law'" [8]

GCHQ provides more internet surveillance records than any other nation in the Five Eyes (ATM) and shares this, including the NSA without a warrant system. [9] [10] [11]

There's a great breakdown the GCHQ case specifically. [12]

Of course it goes the other direction as well. [13]

Don't just take this from journalists, leaked documents, whistleblowers, and embarassed officials. You can trust watchdog agencies inside of Canada to give you the scoop too. Watchdog agencies 'chastised' intelligence programs for using allied partners to circumvent domestic law in a 51-page document. [14] [15]

These partnerships are extremely common. The NSA has (had?) 37 partnerships of varying degree of collaboration. [16]

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/04/nsa-partnership-isr...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/opinion/israels-nsa-scanda...

[+] http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/11/nsa...

[3] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26216883

[4] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/16/australia-spied...

[5] http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/edward-snowden-new-zea...

[6] https://archive.org/details/dom-7501-1-the-moment-of-truth-n...

[7] http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-documents-n...

[8] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jun/10/nsa-offers-i...

[9] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret...

[10] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/nsa-paid-gchq...

[11] http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/uk-usa-security-bri...

[12] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/jun/10/cameron...

[13] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/us-spy-base-t...

[14] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-spy-age...

[15] http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/25/court-rebukes-csis-f...

[16] http://hbpub.vo.llnwd.net/o16/video/olmk/holt/greenwald/NoPl...

Going to get back to other bits later, as it is far too late at the moment. It's very difficult to square your claims against "not this program", leaks and reports by others (e.g. Risen, Binney), Senate Reports and legislation that tries to move the data from NSA hands back to telecom hands.

A short preview though.

WRT "they could be doing it" - there's a sordid history with intelligence agencies expanding their capabilities, and not having technical limitations in an area so easy to be covert (computer systems) is a recipe for disaster. Especially when you create an apparatus that won't just be used today, but will both store data from today and continue to get access to tomorrow and will be inherited by who knows who.

Of course USAID isn't NSA. The ethics don't concern me. Neither of those are relevant to the point, left woefully neglected.

You round JTRIG down. They disrupt individuals lives and aggressively target inducing paranoia. Yeah that's not the same as a black bag (that comes later, for those who are unfortunate to become a large enough problem). Black bag programs exist. How often are they wielded? Rarely. Thank god. It's not reasonable to draw your line in the sand at assassination or concentration programs. You've also missed the bit about being notified of your rights and being given a jury of peers.

JTRIG location aside, certainly CIA have those capabilities. NSA and GCHQ partner heavily. US has programs for 'persona management' and astroturfing (they at least have defense contractors that provide that ability) and the HBGary leaks show US intelligence contract for it. We aren't just talking about the NSA here. We're talking about institutionalized surveillance. That means signals intelligence, but also partners, HUMINT, ELINT, traditional law enforcement, etc.

Regarding Greenwald. I would love to see more people get access to more document (depends on which - I would like America and allies to win the cyber intelligence war). I'm not sure the powers that be want any more people looking at the documents. We'll see.