I'd encourage you to do more than read an article written by a party with a vested interest, and critically read the linked legal submission. When reading such

I'd encourage you to do more than read an article written by a party with a vested interest, and critically read the linked legal submission. When reading such a court document, remember it is written by a lawyer (or team of laywers) with the intent (explicit or otherwise) of conflating many ideas. Creative naming of artefacts, systems, roles, organisations, etc. are all employed to paint a picture - the most vivid, influential, negative picture possible - whilst still being technically factually. Critical reading of the submission, filtering for technical details suggests that yes, there was indeed integration into existing networks (obviously), and existing databases/systems of record, maybe related to Falun Gong, but frankly the majority of the technical data looks like a description of any intercept network - whether for troubleshooting, traffic analysis, or lawful intercept.