[Scotty]

There's a sort of feedback effect in play there, as well.  Target specializes in catering to pregnant women.  Pregnant women shop at Target.  Target refines criteria, makes shopping easier, and the cycle repeats.  It happens on a less visible and less dramatic scale with other demographics, but it's a very real (and very effective) business model.

[zookeeper]

I think it's entirely fair towards the NSA (or any other intelligence agency) to assume that whatever they say is most likely a lie, because that's what we know intelligence agencies [are supposed to] do.

I think the only sane thing to do is to assume that anything an intelligence agency says is by default a lie. Their very job is to lie and spread misinformation and cover up their own lies, and they have a lot of power to do so. There's no reason to trust them, and plenty of reasons for mistrust.

Of course I can't know if Snowden's revelations are true or not, but I don't have a problem with believing it by default. If they were not true, then the NSA and co could prove it with more transparency and oversight. They don't.

[Dragon]

While they could prove his revelations are not true (assuming that they aren't), this would have a serious disadvantage, though. It would inform anyone at odds with them of capabilities they don't have. Note, I'm not saying NSA doesn't do things Snowden said they do. In fact, they're not the only ones that do this (FBI vs. Martin Luther King case was referenced a few times), but if it turned out they don't, it'd be quite a compromitation, because they're, you know, an intelligence agency. They're kind of supposed to do exactly this sort of shady work, and it'd be really embarrassing if it turned out supermarkets and data mining companies do it better. Also, the fact that NSA is lying (they almost certainly are) doesn't mean Snowden is telling the truth. Quite the contrary, I have a suspicion both are lying, for different reasons and in different ways. This whole situation does not smell fishy by that point, it reeks like an old trawler.

So what should we do? What we always did. Let's face it, we're being watched, no matter where or who we are. NSA is just another pair of eyes sifting through our data. Along with data mining companies, ad sites, Google, every major shopping network, probably half the websites we visit and more than one foreign intelligence agency. Just be careful what you say on the internet, and don't say things you're not ready to say in public. Sensitive data doesn't belong on internet anyway. I don't think that an average person is at risk of having an active defamation campaign started by NSA (or any other intel agency) for one simple reason: money. NSA (and not only they, IIRC, Mossad pulled this out with some Iranian scientists, too) surely can destroy any chosen person's credibility, but it costs money, probably a whole lot. Therefore, I don't think they'd do such a thing without a very good reason. Travel restrictions for calls to Middle East are cheap; it's just a phone call/some paperwork sent to TSA. An active campaign against a person much less so, probably involving quite a few trained (and well paid) specialists.

[General Battuta]

We did not always accept covert social sanction of unprosecuted, innocent undesirables and disruptives, and we will continue to not accept this.

[zookeeper]

Also, the fact that NSA is lying (they almost certainly are) doesn't mean Snowden is telling the truth. Quite the contrary, I have a suspicion both are lying, for different reasons and in different ways. This whole situation does not smell fishy by that point, it reeks like an old trawler.

I hear people saying that, but I myself haven't seen anything fishy or suspicious about Snowden, his actions, or the whole debacle.

So what should we do? What we always did. Let's face it, we're being watched, no matter where or who we are. NSA is just another pair of eyes sifting through our data. Along with data mining companies, ad sites, Google, every major shopping network, probably half the websites we visit and more than one foreign intelligence agency. Just be careful what you say on the internet, and don't say things you're not ready to say in public. Sensitive data doesn't belong on internet anyway. I don't think that an average person is at risk of having an active defamation campaign started by NSA (or any other intel agency) for one simple reason: money. NSA (and not only they, IIRC, Mossad pulled this out with some Iranian scientists, too) surely can destroy any chosen person's credibility, but it costs money, probably a whole lot. Therefore, I don't think they'd do such a thing without a very good reason. Travel restrictions for calls to Middle East are cheap; it's just a phone call/some paperwork sent to TSA. An active campaign against a person much less so, probably involving quite a few trained (and well paid) specialists.

The point is that most people could become such a person of interest by simply being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time, not that they'd spend billions on smear campaigns against ordinary people who say the wrong thing online.

[Dragon]

I think the situations stinks of politics for miles. The facts that he's the only existing source, there are no leaks that would confirm or deny his revelations and that he never said anything that would actually impede the NSA make me suspicious. Also, he's not releasing everything he wants to at once, but over time, perhaps with some deliberate timing. Call me paranoid, but I'm just not sure of his motives. Note, this is intelligence we're talking about.

The point is that most people could become such a person of interest by simply being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time, not that they'd spend billions on smear campaigns against ordinary people who say the wrong thing online.

And that's where the real, still unanswered question lies: what are the chances of that happening, versus the chances of NSA actually applying it's methods against a valid target? It's not an easy question, too. It all depends on many factors, many of which are in constant flux. Skill of the NSA personnel, the degree of paranoia among the leadership, technology itself... It seems that the government considers NSA a worthy investment (otherwise, they'd probably slash it's funding), so there's a chance they catch more guilty people than innocent ones. However, actually evaluating the numbers is beyond our capability, and perhaps that's really what should change about it's transparency. Not knowing about the methods or programs used by them is to be expected, but we should at least know if they are actually getting the results, or if they are another money sink that could be disposed of and it's duties handed off to FBI and CIA.

[General Battuta]

I think the situations stinks of politics for miles. The facts that he's the only existing source

Factually incorrect, there have been multiple other whistleblowers since.

there are no leaks that would confirm or deny his revelations and that he never said anything that would actually impede the NSA make me suspicious.

Factually incorrect, see above.

Also, he's not releasing everything he wants to at once, but over time, perhaps with some deliberate timing. Call me paranoid, but I'm just not sure of his motives. Note, this is intelligence we're talking about.

Wikileaks was massacred for trying to dump everything without screening it to perform a risk assessment.

The question of the efficacy of NSA and CIA programs can be answered by history.

[StarSlayer]

The problem is they have the keys to considerable leverage for influencing domestic issues and very little oversight due to all the 9/11 legislation that got squeezed through under the guise of fear and "patriotism".  Given many politicians penchant for collecting **** they don't want public that's quite a bit of power you wish to hand over to an intelligence agency.  I suppose you can hope they will be benevolent from now and forever. 

Though I wonder what would have happened if say Eygpt, Syria or Libya had access to their entire populaces' message traffic?

[Dragon]

I think the situations stinks of politics for miles. The facts that he's the only existing source

Factually incorrect, there have been multiple other whistleblowers since.

Sources. Links to articles. Names. "There have been". Then why haven't I heard about them? Why is there a ruckus only when Snowden says something? Why is he getting all the press, despite his information being pretty bland? Sure, there were some mentions of others, here and there. But Snowden is the only one I know anything about, besides the fact he exists. Maybe that info is just buried somewhere in the depths of the internet, but you'd think it'd be more publicized.

Wikileaks was massacred for trying to dump everything without screening it to perform a risk assessment.

That's why I said "everything he wants to". He should know just what info is where when it comes to risk assessment. Wikileaks had to guess a lot more than him.

[Aardwolf]

From what I heard the "new" stuff is just stuff he gave to Greenwald et al. a while ago but which they are only now releasing.

Wikileaks was massacred for trying to dump everything without screening it to perform a risk assessment.

Except they actually did screen the stuff, and the US govt still went and ruined their day.

[Grizzly]

Snowden doesn't just "release", he gives the information to a team of journalists from various newspapers around the world (the dutch NRC being amongst them) who help them sift trough it and release the important bits (publishing it in their respective newspapers). This is a very slow process (and there's probably massive amounts of data involved).

[Aardwolf]

Again, gave not gives.

[General Battuta]

I think the situations stinks of politics for miles. The facts that he's the only existing source

Factually incorrect, there have been multiple other whistleblowers since.

Sources. Links to articles. Names. "There have been". Then why haven't I heard about them?

I don't know! I'm not you!

Why is there a ruckus only when Snowden says something? Why is he getting all the press, despite his information being pretty bland? Sure, there were some mentions of others, here and there. But Snowden is the only one I know anything about, besides the fact he exists. Maybe that info is just buried somewhere in the depths of the internet, but you'd think it'd be more publicized.

Your map of intelligence whistleblowers is not the territory of intelligence whistleblowers. Tice, Klein, Tamm and Drake all predated Snowden. So did Binney and Wiebe. Snowden's leaks were corroborated by the US government itself, sometimes when internal investigations by other government arms uncovered NSA activity (such as surveillance of foreign allies) that had been kept compartmentalized. The US Director of National Intelligence admitted to and apologized for lying directly to Congress under oath. An NSA official in Germany just went to Bild am Sonntag to reveal that the NSA's reaction to Snowden's leaks about surveillance in Germany included an expansion of surveillance to German ministers.

Snowden's revelations are, by the available convergent evidence, not fabrications. PRISM, XKEYSCORE, and TEMPORA are real and substantiated.

[Ulala]

Consider the implication that the NSA has all the dirt it ever wanted on the nation's lawmakers, judges, supreme court justices, and the president. Or if it doesn't, the NSA could just as easily fabricate dirt since they mass collect everything anyway, who would be able to argue? The poor unfortunate soul's word against theirs? Something tells me we won't see a legislated reigning in of power at the NSA any time soon, so how then would we ever limit their power? Scary thought, IMO.

[Aardwolf]

Well certain states have proposed (or passed?) legislation that makes it illegal to provide material support (including utilities like water and electricity) to any agency that claims to have the power to collect data or metadata without a warrant (paraphrased)... so that's a start.

[Mars]

lol. Good luck with that.