Thanks for the close reading. I guess it depends what you think "no domestic intercepts" excludes, and how much you believe that everyone in the NSA follows th

Thanks for the close reading. I guess it depends what you think "no domestic intercepts" excludes, and how much you believe that everyone in the NSA follows the rules. Even if most of them do, a few have the tools to become a very big problem --- and the rest of the organization wouldn't necessarily know, since in an organization like the NSA, people aren't supposed to know what's happening in the office down the hall. To start with the scope of what's available: it almost certainly includes data on US persons "incidentally" acquired in taps on an authorized target. I'm not aware of anything on DEA procedures there specifically, but as for the general rules, see here: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/11/08/the-intelligence-communitys-wide-open-unprotected-back-door-to-all-your-content/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/11/08/the-intelligence-commun... Of course, even if NSA analysts know that they have DEA "customers" (as they apparently call the recipients of their intelligence), it might be a breach of the rules to select overseas targets which would be likely to have domestic contacts of interest to the DEA. But given that knowingly breaking the rules in pursuit of an authorized goal seems to count in NSA audits as mere "lack of due diligence", and not classed as "abuse", I'm not sure how much comfort to take from that. Analysis of NSA audit data from Marcy Wheeler here: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/16/lack-of-due-diligence-the-nsas-the-analyst-didnt-give-a-fuck-violation/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/16/lack-of-due-diligence-t... ... with further notes on the audit process, and narrow definitions of "abuse" here: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/20/if-nsa-commits-database-query-violations-but-nobody-audits-them-do-they-really-happen/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/08/20/if-nsa-commits-database...