why doesn't Martha manipulate absolutely

the
lid and replace the self-diagnosed defective component.
[snip]

In pursuit of plausible deniability, CSE, GCHQ, and NSA have used each
others' personnel and resources to evade laws against domestic spying.

[ an example given in which the NSA wanted to spy on someone within
the US, even though they had no authorization for such an operation ]

...So, two Canadians were sent to conduct a counter-espionage operation
on US soil at US taxpayer expense so that NSA could maintain deniability.

In every way that counts, NSA broke US law and spied on its own citizens.

[ A UK operation by CSE described next. Margaret Thatcher (then Prime
Minister) thinks two of the ministers in her cabinet are not 'on side'
...so she wants to find out if they are... So GCHQ asked CSE operators
to come to London to bug the ministers ]

Increasingly though, both because it's possible and because it's desired,
individuals are caught in the broad net of electronic surveillance.

The experts can record and analyze all your communications at will.

SIGINT organizations in Canada, US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand use
supercomputers such as the Cray to select items of interest. The list
is very fluid and is adapted rapidly to monitor people and policy areas.

At any time, it is likely to contain names of all world leaders, terrorists,
drug lords, mafia dons, members of radical groups, labor union activists
and leaders, types of weaponry, explosives, financial dealings, money
transfers, airline destinations, stock information, international
conferences, demonstrations, and politically suspect groups and individuals.

As is the case with operations, countries maintain deniability by getting
information gathered on their domestic situations by allies.

Under development is even more sophisticated "topic recognition" which
can home in on guarded conversations t