You don't get it. These jokers can only spy on us because they've purchased or discovered vulnerabilities in the systems we use. Instead of going all noble, protect the American citizen--their job--and notified the appropriate parties of these vulnerabilities they keep them for themselves to exploit wherever possible. An argument might be formulated in their defense if this was a one-sided deal. But, it's not, if they can discover/purchase these vulnerabilities so can others. If they can exploit them, so can others.
The more these types of agencies can have their curtains drawn back to expose their shenanigans the better. Its time to change the culture away from thinking the world is a grand RTS game with zero real world consequences. For the former generations I have a simple suggestion: "video games." It's time to give a sh*t about the people you're hurting. If you need to play your "Cloak and Dagger," "Master and Commander," "The Spy that Shagged Me" bullsh*t go buy yourself a console.
Your answer seems to be in conflict with your credentials. The provider of data should not be the interpreter of information. You state the facts as you know them and your confidence in those facts. If the best they can do is "the United States" then the logical reply is of course "the center of the US" with a radius of inclusion being the maximum distance reaching out from the center that could be included. What is done with that data is the responsibility of the interpreter and communicator of information derived from that data.
I was under the impression that the F-35 wasn't going to scrape the tree tops like the A-10. Rather it provided CAS from higher/farther by utilizing it's superior sensor suite and munitions.
Most of the criticism seems to be coming from armchair trolls and A-10 fans that aren't able to accept/grasp how the technology will bridge the gap. There hasn't been objective, real-world data provided on its CAS abilities yet. Should be coming soon now that they've been moved to "ready for combat" status.
"But what we need to know is, do people want nasally-insertable computers?"