The issue, in this case, is to identify if the benefits of digital surveillance outweigh the problems associated with it. Mass surveillance is an issue that was intensified after the bombing of twin towers in 2001. Therefore, the main intention of this program is to deter or avert terrorist activities in America significantly. This paper explores the article by Gellman, where the revelations of Snowden pertaining to the NSA are discussed. Most importantly, this paper will look at the issue in the context of homeland security as well as a personal opinion as to whether the system is justified. What I still want to know Still, I want to know is why organizations such as the National Security Agency face no risks, consequences, answerability, restrictions, and oversight. This is based on the fact the actions taken by Snowden may be considered unlawful as they have already warranted attention from institutions that enforce laws (Editorial Board par. 4). What is more, I may still want to know how the revelations by Snowden constitute a terrorist threat. Successful scenarios The National Security Agency says that the mass surveillance program has managed to avert some terrorist activities. Some of these scenarios include the case of the man who was convicted in San Diego for having links with Al Shabab, the other case is the planned subway system attack in New York, where the mastermind was tracked using an intercepted email account (Chapman par. 2-5). Last but not least, the NSA indicates that it prevented an attack on the New York Stock Exchange, which involved three Americans who were tracked using intercepted email information. Generally, as it can be seen, these are situations or scenarios provided by the government to justify the effectiveness of the National Security Agency. However, as it can be seen, when subjected to examination, none of these scenarios holds up. My Personal Position Unlike many critics, Edward Snowden was justified to leak intelligent information to the general public. This is because, as an employee, he was bound by the oath of secrecy even if he had to reveal it he would have raised the issue with concerned authorities than going public (Risen and Poitras 1). His action though to the public eye, was justified, represented a serious contravention of not only the core values but also the code of conduct of National Security Agency (Gellman 1-2). The idea is that matters to do with security are always sensitive; therefore those who have the privilege of access them must or have a duty to ensure that their fellow citizens are not predisposed to security threats. Given information that was revealed relates to the functions of the National Security Agency such as the methods used to collect data, how the data is stored, and where it is stored, records of terrorist and their activities, such kind of information may easily be used by illegal groupings against the United States (Kopan par.3). Revealing this kind of information can easily damage to homeland security. As it has been indicated, it gives terrorists some means to avoid being tracked. By the fact that the information contained personnel details, it puts many people at risk as the revealed information shows their enemies the kind of strengths they command (Sanger and Schmitt par. 7-8). For the moment, mass surveillance stands out as the b