This article linked from Wikipedia has a Canadian stating that the Brits asked them to monitor British citizens and US lawmakers worrying that it was being used to spy on US citizens:
I guess widespread speculation that avoiding domestic surveillance laws is one of the things done with the system isn't the same as knowing that it is going on, but my point was that the widespread speculation had proceeded Snowden by quite some time.
Fair point. And I do appreciate the additional information and links.
From your NY Times article (published May 27, 1999):
Until last Sunday, no government or intelligence agency from the member states had openly admitted to the existence of the UKUSA Agreement or Echelon.
The mutual surveillance / legal evasion possibility appears to be suspected but not demonstrated. Again as with much else, what Snowden's done is to specifically document such activity. Which is of and by itself a material distinction.
European Parliament officials have also expressed concern about the use of Echelon to gather economic intelligence for participating nations.
And:
While few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists, many are concerned that the system COULD be abused to collect economic and political information.
(All-caps emphasis added -- minimal HN formatting options have their drawbacks.)
So, I'll maintain that the documentation of such abuse is a New Thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27n...
I guess widespread speculation that avoiding domestic surveillance laws is one of the things done with the system isn't the same as knowing that it is going on, but my point was that the widespread speculation had proceeded Snowden by quite some time.