> This does not follow, as the logical conclusion of your statement is that the American public either has a right to all state secrets, or is a foe of its own country. The value of secrets is in their secrecy, and when that value is lost, harm is done.

Could you provide some evidence of harm here?

> That is a big claim, can you give an example of a serious threat to the US which is possible with simple & freely available tools?

No, because that's not the claim I made. The claim I made was "Any serious threat to the US is sophisticated enough to get around surveillance with simple, freely-available tools."

GPG has been around for a long time, and I haven't come across any convincing evidence of a surveillance organization able to decrypt GPG-encrypted messages.

> What I know is that Snowden escaped to China with data he stole in less than 3 months on the job, and less 1 month afterward was on a flight with Wikileaks editor and Assange's closest advisor Sarah Harrison, seeking political asylum in the bastion of political freedom, Russia.

...which is not "Escaping to Julian Assange." What you said above is true, but saying he "Escaped to Julian Assange" is a lie.

> My question was about Snowden's efforts, as the topic is valid reasons why some may consider him a traitor. I'll interpret your response as, like me, you also don't know the answer to my question.

The answer to your question is in the part of my post which you didn't quote, so I'm just going to quote myself:

"There were a number of people who tried to point out some of the same problems as Snowden through proper channels[1]. The results of this were that they were silenced, without producing any change. History shows us that the legal channels are a tool for surveillance organizations to identify whistleblowers and silence them before they can do any good, rather than a legitimate way to identify illegal activity by surveillance organizations."

> I find this rather unnecessary. People who disagree with you aren't enemies to be shamed and insulted.

If all you had done was disagree with me, I wouldn't have called what you said a lie, and you'll note that most of your post where you were just disagreeing with me, I didn't call what you were saying lies. I only call what you said a lie when it is a lie, and it has to be very clearly a lie for me to do that.

Anyone can verify that Snowded did not "escape to Julian Assange." The locations of both people at that time are widely-known public information. So when you said that Snowden escaped to Julian Assange, what you said was not just a disagreement with me, it was unambiguously a lie.

I'm not insulting you. I'll grant you the same respect that I would grant any human being, but that respect does not include treating lies as legitimate points, nor does it include mincing words when you decide to lie to everyone reading your post. If you write something untrue and post it here and I call you out on it, that's not me shaming you, that's you behaving in a shameful way.

You don't get to lie and then accuse me of being impolite when I point out your lie. Politeness includes telling the truth.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-...