A libtard is someone who krellin disagrees with. I don't think it has any functional meaning outside that.

I have a weird feeling that krellin and steephie wouldn't exactly hit it off if they met.

I get along with everyone.

I was just taunting of course, but I was primarily referring to the habit of saying the same thing again and again, complaining about no one arguing part of their statements until someone does so quite decently and definitely seriously, after which the guy that used to complain all of the sudden disappears, ready to use the same old argument a month later, restarting the cycle.

Assuming that krellin isn't a pussy IRL, I'm fairly confident that we would hit it off pretty well. He seems like one of few people who take every opportunity to get rid of useless social protocols and focus on actually having a good time, rather than doing things in a socially accepted way. I like to think of myself as the same in that aspect.

Then again, krellin might just be a politically correct pussy IRL.

Libtard (liberal retard) is the predominant person on this site. This would be, because most that are on this forum and either still living at home with mommy and daddy and have their bills payed or are at some higher learning institution and think that living in a capitalist society should be the same for all.
Well my friends, it is the same for all. Everyone has an opportunity to claim whatever part of the American dream that they want. Go out and work for it. If you don't want to do that, you will have less( and I don't bleed for you) if you want everything to be equal for everyone move to a socialist country. Bye. Good riddance.

Are you British or from another European country, ssorenn? As I understand it, your point of view is quite the opposite of liberal in the US. Your point of view is in fact rather close to the point of view of krellin I'd say.

Steephie - He was providing a definition and an example. He wasn't claiming to be one.

Draug is correct

Ah, I missed that. Thanks for explaining.

On-topic: obi is still a coward :)

Wow, I've been in hospital for 6 days. It's therefore slightly surprising that:

(a) This thread is still topping the forum,
and:
(b) Despite (a), obiwan has failed to MAN UP.

I think we can conclude that obiwan has no answer to steephie's very well-presented argument. I declare steephie the winner.

Yeah, I've been bumping it so obiwan would has no excuse.

You should probably +1 every post by me in this thread, that will teach him.

And thanks for the declaration.

By popular demand (and I emphasize the latter word, as I REALLY considered this debate finished...I think I've said all I can on this, for better and for worse, the latter again probably outweighing the former) here we go, answering steephie:

"Let's start with what was the use of it. As you said, we all knew what America was doing. They were spying. On everyone. "We all" is an overstatement though: everyone with half a brain knew this. But apparently not everyone knew this, since some people were still shocked."

I don't count the education of the blithering and blind as a good in this instance--it's the inner elitist in me, admittedly, but if you didn't have an inkling to this or couldn't figure the potential for this out in a (wait for it) post-Patriot Act world (see, I told you this would be nothing original and I'd said my peace) then frankly, in the same way that those who are foolish enough to elect poor leaders deserve their tyranny in my book, those who are foolish enough not to recognize this deserve to be taken advantage of as well. (I mean "deserve" here not legally, but rather colloquially.)

Go on...because hopefully, educating the imbecilic isn't going to be the strongest part of your pro-Snowden argument (I've already lost this debate anyway, so don't take any bile personally--I just don't have to be polite for fear of losing the debate is all, you're welcome to be equally-nasty to me back.) :)

"Well, as everyone with half a brain knows, not everyone has half a brain (I'm not talking anatomically here obviously, it's a metaphor, before someone falls over that)."

Again...so? I actually find this argument fascinating, since it almost borders on the sort of condescending liberalism that krellin sees as, well, all liberalism--that is, that the government sees people as fingers-up-their-nose stupid that "it knows better" or "must protect them from themselves." (Which is really almost the sentiment behind the NSA spying ideal, isn't it, that we're either so stupid as to allow this or such a danger to ourselves that we must be monitored lest more terrorist activity occur due to our inability to detect it otherwise.) Now, this is Snowden/his followers with that ethos here and not the government we're talking about, but still...

Why should I care if the blithering and bumbling get taken?

I don't see anyone standing up for those foolish enough to be taken in by Internet scams and pyramid schemes and magical diet pills...granted NSA spying is about ten leagues worse than that, but still, the fact is, the sensible and the logical and the aware will already know that or have an inkling about that...

I fail to see why educating irresponsible adults should be a prime reason to declare the man a patriot. But maybe the argument will get better (I'm answering as I go along) so we'll see.

"So yes, to some, this was a revelation. Who cares about what people who have less than half a brain though?"

Exactly! :) So your answer is...

"Well, every elected US government official who can be reelected, who wants to keep his/her job and has half a brain."

I reject that out of hand...it's a fun stereotype to call Congress and the President (Obama, Bush, or anyone else) an idiot or a fool, but the fact is most of those people are (book) smart...you have people like Paul Broun being on a committee for science and claiming evolution is from Satan and the pits of Hell...and that's face-palmingly stupid...and to be fair, there are idiots like Anthony Weiner on the liberal side...but overall? These are the "full-brains," not the "half-brains," if we're to go along with the terminology we've set out for ourselves.

"After all, the people who don't have half a brain still get a full vote, and sadly that's a lot of votes. Snowden helps the people with less than half a brain to understand what's going on. It helps them see who are the tyrants that need to be removed from power. It helps them see who's good for the government and who's bad. It helps them understand that, no matter what you think of the government, it's unconstitutional, so just blindly following it is arguably rather ignorant."

To be fair, that's maybe one of the best reasons I've heard for supporting Snowden so far. That being said, I still think it's a bad one and fails, because:

1. Half-brains are, well, half-brained. You might be optimistic enough to think they'll change...I am not. And part of that has to do with what might be called the "culture of protest" that's evolved in the Internet age--in the past, if you had a protest and movement and it gained traction, if you had a figurehead (and to be fair, Snowden's just that, a figurehead leader at the head of this) to be the face of the movement and some momentum, you might just sustain things...now?

We move on to a new thing to rail in outrage about weekly, sometimes daily.

Kony 2012, anyone, to just name one prominent example of a fad protest?

Hastag activism isn't the way forward. The denizens of the Internet have ADD when it comes to this sort of thing, and that goes double for the half-brains, because

2. Half-brains are, on the whole, generally fixated on their immediate surroundings. You and I and everyone else here are having this discussion because we have a view of both ourselves and the world that extends from beyond our back porch, metaphorically speaking. Half-brains do not. They only act if and when something directly impacts them, which is why this flared up as it did...egregious-yet-theoretical breaches of Constitutional power in the War Powers and Patriot Acts? You and I and the others here might get upset about that...but them? No. Now, their emails and Twitters and whatever else they THINK might be being monitored...well, suddenly, that (seems to) directly affect them, so all of a sudden, it seems important...UNTIL they get the feeling it no longer DOES directly affect them...or they lose interest...or both. Hence my above point about Internet activism and, to a lesser extent, things like the Occupy "movement" (which you might recall I railed against as idiotic in its own right when that was actually relevant and less a punchline...well, less than it is now, anyway.)

These people don't care about being educated or whatever...and in its own way, that's fine--society takes all types. If they want to live in their own world, so be it.

But that doesn't mean that educating the blindingly ignorant, who are going to rage impotently for a few weeks and months before doing anything because they DON'T do anything because the only times they DO do something is if it absolutely 100% affects them directly (gun control is a perfect example here...which isn't to say those anti-gun control are half-brains--much as I disagree with them--so much as to say that some pro-gun people are ONLY active and interested in this because it'd be something that'd affect them directly, that idea of having their guns snatched out from under them)...and...well...

We've talked an awful lot about theory here, haven't we, and Orwell?

So I guess I'll beat that dead horse again and quote the old man again--

"If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated."

Definitely the Snowden-ite Ethos of "WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERICA"...the problem with that? Orwell himself gives the answer in the same chapter--

"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."

And that is the nature of the proles, half-brains, whatever we wish to call them.

It's a Catch 22 in the truest sense--these people can't or won't take real action (as in getting off their butts, out of the world of mere hashtag/Facebook postings "activism" and actually organizing and DOING something...I can at least credit the Occupy folks for organizing...though they never really DID anything, did they, but sat around? In Egypt, Libya, and other places in the Arab Spring, they did both, organized and did something, but then, doing something and sustaining it and doing it well are three very different things, but at least we can say they've still done far more than the half-brains) until they're...I don't want to use the term "educated," that's too mean and frankly too Orwellian...until they're a "full-brain," we'll say, aware, conscious...

They can't be aware or conscious until they act, and they can't act until they've been made aware or gained full consciousness of the situation.

So no. Trying to make proles aware doesn't constitute a win here.

Let I sound entirely like O'Brien here, let me clarify something--

Orwell's book imagines the number at 85%, as I quoted...this is the rare instance where I'm more optimistic than someone (though being more optimistic than "1984" is like being thinner than Jabba the Hutt, I suppose.) I don't think it's that high at all--again, as evidenced by the fact that regular people, you and I and those with us here on WebDip, we're talking about this...and we're hardly the elite Inner Party, and plenty of us wouldn't be the Outer Party, either.

That sort of hierarchy does exist in some places, but I'd argue not in the US/UK.

So it isn't as if Snowden was informing 85% of America about this/the potential for this.

He was informing far, far fewer, affirming far, far more than that, and damaging the efforts of those we elected to do our business, which brings me to the last point I'll touch on in this section:

3. "It helps them see who are the tyrants that need to be removed from power. It helps them see who's good for the government and who's bad. It helps them understand that, no matter what you think of the government, it's unconstitutional, so just blindly following it is arguably rather ignorant."

I think I've made it clear that it doesn't help them see this, because I don't think they WILL see such things...case in point?

We JUST had elections...and after all that anger and moaning over partisanship and an ineffective and corrupt government we...

Elected the same president and (more or less) the same Congress, with the same GOP majority in the House and slim Democratic majority in the Senate.

They. Do. Not. Learn. I'd put points or whatever on that, if I could, in a bet, as far as this election cycle, too--the GOP will pick up seats (as the rival party to the party in the White House generally does in the midterms) and in 2016 we'll go through the whole debacle again.

You do touch on another thing I dislike about Snowdenism, however, with your "who's good and who's bad" comment--namely, the utter simplicity in that statement.

Contrary to my name (REALLY not one that fits anymore, haven't seen these movies...almost since I've had this name, actually) the world is NOT divided into Jedi and Sith or Rebels and Stormtroopers or Good Guys and Bad Guys...

EVEN among those who supported this (IMMORAL) NSA spying plan, because, as I said before, repeatedly, I DO believe that governments can and sometimes sadly must do morally-wrong things for ethically or politically-right (or, to use a better word, understandable) reasons.

This is what I frankly find most insipid about Snowden and his followers--his and their tendency to reduce complex, real-world politics to the ludicrousness of a ludic, good vs. bad kind of game...and it's NOT, and that's NOT how you achieve real or lasting progress or change, and frankly, viewing things in such half-empty, half-full, half-witted terms is, well, what I'd see as one sign of being a half-brain.

Good guys and bad guys?
What about the reasoning behind this?
What about the implications?
What were the alternatives?
What were the situations that gave rise to this?
And so on and so on...ALL questions that are brushed aside for simplistic and stupid Good vs. Evil.

It's another reason Orwell and Huxley's dystopias still work today whereas something like "Divergent," the newest YA flavor of the month and movie franchise to be adapted, does not--both of the great authors above (albeit Huxley far more than Orwell) at least give their governments reasons that can be understood as to why they're doing what they're doing...they're still morally-wrong, but those two authors at least make the attempt to show governments aren't just mustache-twirling baddies, but have complex socio-economic reasons for what they do, good and bad...even with Orwell's party being interested in "power for power's sake" has depth to that, as he goes into with great detail, it's not just a stock baddy. By contrast, that's exactly what's the case in "Divergent" and, to a slightly lesser extent, "The Hunger Games"--government is evil because government is evil, full stop. Reasons are given, but they're all iterations on "because we're evil," rather than Orwell's linking government with God, or Huxley linking it with mass production and mass consumerism.

Which is one more reason I rail against those books, folks, when I go on on my rants against Young Adult novels--what you read DOES influence who you are and how you think...and feeding our kids substandard schlock that's poorly plotted and, more damning still, overly simplified can lead to people developing an oversimplified view of the world. Sure, indulging in a fun book now and then is great...but there's a difference between making a Hershey's Kiss your dessert or your daily meal.

And now, after that digression on one root of half-brained-ism, I suppose, and that 3-part argument against your points (which, again, not much new) on we go...

"Now, that's nice, but what about American diplomatic relations? What of Ukraine? All those people who died? PR damaged, as good a place to start as any.
Russia knew what USA was doing. The EU knew what USA was doing. The USA were in full denial though. They argued pretending they weren't unconstitutional and spying, while everyone knew otherwise. Without proof, we couldn't exactly call out the USA, but with every negotiation, we took this into account, and USA didn't. We'd end up with needless stalemates in negotiations because we couldn’t allow the unconstitutional government in denial to do certain things, while the USA couldn't give in, since they were supposed to pretend like they weren't spying. The USA was looking at the world from their imaginary morally superior bubble, while the world already knew that it was just imaginary."

...OK...but that was the case since WWII, the US looking at the world that way...and the world's reaction and knowledge of the US not being as hot as the US always acts is...um...just about as old as that, or at the very earliest, something that's been prevalent post-Cold War, when the West no longer needed the US's alliances and military might so much to defer a potential Soviet takeover, especially in the, erm, Eastern part of the West?

Again, how is that new? And Snowden's exposing our hypocrisy allowed us to admit to hypocrisy, therefore, we should be thankful that we don't have to be burdened by the weight of being hypocrites anymore?

1. How is that necessarily-good...I mean, if you can fake it and pull things off (as we have in the past) then diplomatically...go for it? Hypocrisy wasn't what strained the Trans-Atlantic Alliance in the 2000s so much as, ahem, other elements of foreign policy.

2. I'll ask for the umpteenth time...what possible way do you know or have reason to even think that they won't spy AGAIN, or do this AGAIN, or become hypocrites in that fashion AGAIN? Snowden-ites seem to view this as the NSA going home red-faced and embarrassed because one man gave them a political and PR nightmare...which I find laughable because, well, really--if we WERE the kind of oversimplified Orwellian nightmare the Snowden-ites see us trending towards...do you really see the guys in Room 101 letting Winston Smith go if he'd somehow published his diary and exposed the Party? IS that what tyrannical governments do, just up and reform and apologize...or do they get even NASTIER when revealed? And if the US ISN'T that kind of state and things aren't that bad or simplistic...well, then that's what I've been saying all along.

"Examples of seemingly inexplicable inaction can be found in the Middle-East for example. I say seemingly because the explanation is this completely misplaced morally superior attitude from the US. So that's why I think we're seeing so much inaction."

I'm going to dare to state that...yes...we ARE morally superior to the Middle Eastern states...at the very least, to those where, oh, the stoning of women, "honor rape," and other fun little relics of 12th century Islam are still being practiced. I'd even include Israel in there, as while I defend it...oh boy...there's a LOT Israel's done the last couple years that's hard or impossible to justify morally, and while I understand why they do what they do, still, the US is morally superior to the ruling Likkud party (which really needs to be ousted and replaced with a moderate regime, but that's a whole other thread and debate.)

Now, what does this have to do with Edward Snowden? He popped the bubble. Even though the rest of the world already knew, it was not until now that the US government realised that it wasn't and/or couldn't pretend to be morally superior."

O.o

That's honestly one of the most baffling claims I've seen this whole thread.

HOW?

On the one hand, as I just claimed above...yes...yes, we ARE morally superior to Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and I'll throw Israel in there to be fair...we're morally superior to Russia right now...and China...and North Korea...and on and on...

We're not the moral high ground of the world by any means, but Snowden didn't reveal that we're not or can't be morally superior to other nations because we engaged in secret surveillance that, again, anyone with a brain could have deduced...and if you doubt that, I encourage anyone here to go with all their female friends to Saudi Arabia or Yemen and see how that turns out. Heck-why not go to Nigeria right now?

And on the other hand, to repeat a by-now-tired point, steephie...since it's been over an hour typing this and I'm definitely tired... :p

How can you ascribe to the false narrative that one man shamefaced a national agency and, therefore, said agency and said nation will all of a sudden come to the realization that this morally wrong and take one worker's slap on the wrist as if it were the condemnation of God himself (pretending for the moment He exists.)

I disdained the "1984" comparison last year, and I still somewhat do, since frankly, in my mind, the severity just doesn't match up...North Korea and Stalinist Russia, THOSE were Orwellian states...they make the NSA look like puppy dogs and the US Sugar Candy Mountain (to reference another Orwell masterpiece.) But everyone wanted to go with it so badly, so now I will once more--

AGAIN...if we ARE that bad...do you really see the Party seeing the error of its ways and realizing it "can't" be like that anymore because of...heck, we won't even use Wisnton--because Goldstein wrote a book exposing them? (We'll go with the idea that Goldstein was real and his book and dissent was real...the idea that he's yet another Party invention to ferret out possible insurgents is an intriguing one, but as this is on politics and not literature, we'll just go with the thinking that he's real.) No! That's not what happens at all! The Party doubles down, don't they? They get even crueler and more constrictive! So if the US is Oceania here and Snowden Goldstein...well...you tell me...by that Orwellian example...will the US go home shamefaced, crying and reform, or will it just double down and create an even more secretive spy program?

And if the US ISN'T like that...if it is morally superior to some, at least...then what was gained? In addition, everyone here posts like the 60s and 70s never happened...all the coverups then, and all the moral high-ground claimed over the battle vs. communism, and that imploded...so...

Tell me--did the bubble burst and the US government realize it couldn't ever-ever pretend to be morally superior again, OR...well...are we in 2014 with the same damn shit happening again? Tell me again how Snowden was revolutionary in that regard, rather than the latest and one of the weakest iterations in that cyclical process?

"They were forced to become reasonable. That process is still happening now, and will bear it's fruits."

I highly doubt it, and I again point to the 60s/70s. Even if this in particular creates some change, I still maintain that, given the track record, there's no reason to believe they'll stop, but rather just get more secretive and cleverer and better at this...you're also discounting the rise of better technology--after all, isn't that how the NSA got things going this time? Give it another generation, with better tech for them to use, and they'll do it again.

"And so it goes," as Vonnegut would say.

"The bubble would have popped sooner or later anyway. The gap between truth and American point of view was getting bigger and bigger. It's best to pop the bubble before it gets bigger, to reduce the impact of popping it."

I still reject that for the reasons outlined in all the previous sections, from the full-brained already being aware of America's shortcomings (so they gain nothing) to the prole-like existence of non-consciousness of the half-brains (so they gain nothing) to the fact that, again, I think we'll be talking about the same damn thing in different terms in another generation, maybe less.

T"hat's another feat by Edward Snowden: he popped the bubble in time."

No he didn't, not by a long shot. I've already given my case why he popped it at a bad time diplomatically, and in any case, he is somewhat like shouting that he genie's up and dancing about in your living room 20 years after it's left the bottle.

"Long-term, the impact on US PR is much smaller, and the west will get their act together much sooner, all thanks to Edward Snowden. Additionally, Edward Snowden popped the bubble in a controlled matter."

I disagree on both points--they won't get their act together, they'll just get better at it (what is their motivation for getting their act together and doing away with spying vs. adopting BETTER spying, tell me that, please...what's the motive? You and others seem to think this will happen, but why? Given what we've seen, over and over again, if the US--and to be fair, other nations--can spy and lie and get away with it, they will...tell me why this time they'll say they're very, very sorry and won't ever, ever do it again and actually WON'T, rather than just go back to the drawing board and figure out a way to do it that's even more advanced?)

And I hardly think he did this in a controlled manner.

"You could argue about the moral rightness (which obi, ironically, seems to disagree on), but what he did was the practically right thing to do, and he avoided a potential disaster."

I again entirely disagree, as evidenced above...and how is this not a disaster? Tell me how this would have been worse further down the line. You keep pointing to that, as if this was an infected limb that needed to be amputated before the infection spread...how is leaving us without a leg to stand on (to have fun with my above parallel) NOT a disaster? And what evidence do you have that it'd have gotten worse so quickly it had to be done now? Or, to put it another way--sure, you could argue that, unchecked, this would've proceeded slippery-slope style, but leaving aside the issues of assumption implicit with that sort of argument, why did this have to be done NOW, when the US looking better than Russia has never been more important in the last 20 years? I gave all my examples of situations potentially hamstrung by Snowden's hamstringing the US temporarily...tell me why waiting would've led to total catastrophe? That the longer you weight, the worse the revelation? Definitely a fair point--but then again, a horrible revelation delayed until a cushier time can, um, cushion the diplomatic blow.

This goes back to that whole "right to know" ethos that's always existed but has really exploded with the Internet...and frankly, there are cases where I think it goes too far. You do NOT have the right to know everything the US, UK, or any such democratically-elected government does...there are such things as dirty state secrets, and lose lips sink ships, as it were. To be clear, we have the right to know most things, 90%+. That doesn't mean that you or I or Joe Sixpack has the right to know state secrets or the inner workings of government agencies.

You'd surely agree that no one would suggest that everyone has the right to know the nuclear launch codes, right? What's the reasoning behind that? That naturally, the more people know, the more there's a risk someone starts World War III, and if you let everyone know, you essentially guarantee that everyone from the uninformed to the miserable and murderous (these guys going on shooting sprees to inflict pain, imagine what they'd do if they had that "right to know" such state secrets?) to religious fanatics and so on.

So we can agree there are some things the people CAN'T know, there is a limit, the "right to know" isn't an unlimited right. How far does it extend?

Well, with the nuclear launch codes case, we draw the line when the "right to know" can lead to serious state and personal harm...isn't that just what Snowden just allowed for with his "revelations" of state "secrets?" State harm? Obviously WWIII is immeasurably worse, but still, we're willing to draw the line somewhere...where do you draw it?

I want freedom of the press, but again, there's such a thing as journalistic responsibility as well...and if suppressing a story is necessary to ensure the US maintain alliances necessary for the preservation of lives or the end of civil wars...then I still view that delay worth it, and the bubble can be burst later, because the good will from a good action done (ie, actually having had successfully helped in Ukraine, Syria, or other such areas) will help cushion the blow.

To close this section, one final point on that--unintended consequences.

Snowden's "revelations" hurt the US diplomatically across the board, even in areas not directly affected...take the Israeli/Palestinian peace process. We couldn't claim the moral high ground there as we used to be able to do (at least to a certain extent with Israel, since we are their most important ally) because we look bad to everyone. Now, the peace process would still have failed, I'm not saying Snowden torpedoed that. But those extant and long-term, unintended consequences are very, very real...and yet another reason that this was a bad, bad time to do this. Wait until you can cushion the blow...or, if we're going with the amputation metaphor, until you have some anesthetic ready...wait until we've done our Ukrainian business or Syrian business or whatever else, and then go to the press, or try and reform another way. It's fair to ask, "But can't that allow the reveal to be indefinitely delayed?" Yes, yes it can--but at a certain point this all comes down to uncertainty and faith in someone doing something to help this somehow on your end anyway.

And that's the long-awaited retread of a tl;dr answer. :)

^Be careful what you wish for, steephie (though you still won this debate via consensus, lol.) ;)

Considers the debate finished.

Makes a 10,000 word reply.

Obi, I'm gonna be completely straight with you here:

According to Google, the longest forum post known to man (excluding stories, fan fictions, etc.) can be found here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread671266/pg1. This post takes up 31 pages in Word in TNR 12-point font, double-spaced.

Fortunately for us, your post only fell 11 pages short of the longest post ever in internet history.

YOU WROTE 20 FREAKING PAGES.

Well done. Never do that again.

Snowden is a traitor, he revealed intelligence on Chinese targets in order to let him leave and it is strongly likely he did for the Russians to let him stay. he was shopping around the intelligence on those laptops to any takers in order to stay abroad.

I feel like Obi's beaten that before. This can't be the longest thing he's written.

Are you offering up a challenge, ghug?

Shit, obi you could easily beat that record. Go for the guiness brah.

ghug, that's definitely the longest obi post I've seen, and that's saying a LOT.

That post was nearly as long as the entire mafia guide, which I split into four posts for readability.

I went to go look for a longer one, but then I remembered that webDip's longest standing bug is the inability to allocate enough memory for obi's reply page.

a bug which for sake of posterity should never be fixed

Fuck that, I'm not reading that.

Obi, why can't you answer a straightforward single question succinctly and to the point?

That IS his version of being succinct

Obi, could you possibly elaborate further? I think 20 pages isn't enough. You need to write a thesis on it.

Here is a picture of obiwan with the first draft of that post, before he edited it down to a more readable size:

http://jcmslibrary.edublogs.org/files/2011/11/bigbook2-2ccjdkr.jpg

In partial response to the obviously wrong statement that Snowden's leaks didn't provide anything new, here's EFF's list of 65 things Snowden's leaks told us:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/65-65-things-we-know-about-nsa-surveillance-we-didnt-know-year-ago