For one thing, Binney also points to NSA intelligence failures in the same article, and if NSA is missing major activities of other countries (the Russian inter

For one thing, Binney also points to NSA intelligence failures in the same article, and if NSA is missing major activities of other countries (the Russian intervention in Ukraine) and nonstate terrorist groups (the "Islamic State" capture of much territory in Iraq), then surely NSA doesn't have the time and resources to analyze all of the data it gathers, and maybe it is not gathering as much data as some people claim. I do not mean this as an ad hominem, but just by this statement, the rest of your arguments comes off as absurdly naive. Have you considered that perhaps the NSA and all the other "alphabet" organizations don't actually care much about accomplishing their stated goal, but are instead working tirelessly to amass power and influence through the machinations of the state? The linear way in which you assess personal and organizational motivations is simplistic to the point of uselessness. Very few people or organizations with power are doing what they say. Instead, you must ascertain their intentions by what they do. This is politics 101. There are countless examples of this throughout history, but now is neither the time nor place to enumerate them all. The real question to ask is, how in the name of Alan Turing's ghost did the NSA, CIA, FBI and the rest of the spooks with all their capabilities not find Osama, or Saddam's WMDs, or the Russian invasion, or...? Hint: it's not incompetence. TL;DR: First order analysis of intention based upon a person or organization's stated intent are rarely correct. Instead, empirical modelling of behavior over time is required to ascertain true intent.