The US is explicitly not getting data on US citizens from foreign spying according to this article? And the article implies that no loophole was needed for Australia to get data on Australians, there was a legal warrant for that in Australia.

So how is this the "classic Five Eyes loophole"?

>It notes while Australia's judicial order "did not allow for the sharing of the content with foreign partners" the AFP "shared generally" with the FBI the nature of the conversations occurring over AN0M.

It was accidentally leaked that the UK GCHQ had provided intelligence about the US perpetrators of the Times Square 2010 car bomb attack, so it probably does happen.

Although the US ANOM data wasn't sent to the FBI, presumably a foreign agency could see that data and tell the FBI which US citizens might be involved in illegal activity so they can be monitored/investigated in other ways.

Indeed, I suppose not, then.

In New Zealand, immigration send details of selected individuals to US Homeland Security for further analysis. The reason it goes to the US is because we (NZ) don't have the resources to do what the US does.

Homeland Security specifically promises to delete any data once they've finished, but it doesn't say anything about the agencies that they presumably share it with.

Basically if the US wants data on particular people from the Five Eyes network, it can be arranged. And once it's in Langley, it can go anywhere.

The article says that Australia would alert the US. "AFP agreed to monitor them "for any threats to life"."

Yes, its a feature not a bug.