Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we've exhausted this branch of this topic, but I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to discuss this further on other Snowden articles and I look forward to doing exactly that.
So you'll spout the exact same nonsense in another thread, I'll call you on it, you won't present any evidence for your nonsense, and suggest we do this again? No, thanks. I'll pass. If you have any evidence, present it now.
Your post is a classic example of shifting the burden of proof. You are the one with the belief that contradicts documents, leakers, whistleblowers, journalistic reporting, senatorial reports, US history, partner documents, and on.
Or if you need more direct links look through the other branches of this thread. Plenty of evidence, much of it directly from the Congressional oversight committee itself.
The nonsense comes from trying to reinterpret a small number of slides and to then broaden that interpretation to a expansive umbrella.
It is simply truly the case that the NSA and partnered agencies have broad access to sweeping untargetted collection of data.