Sorry, I wish I had seen your comment two days ago when you posted...

I don't think Mr. Barker's argument was based solely on whether or not the US should be doing it, but also touched upon the journalistic standards behind the reporting. As an analogy:

Headline: Hacker News commentors unfazed by NSA controversy

Discussion repeatedly turned in favor of the NSA's targeting of Islamic extremists on Hacker News, a web forum frequented by many of the internet's technical elite. Summerdown2, a respected contributor, even went so far as to say that "of course the US should do to extremists what Glenn Greenwald does routinely to Republicans." Though also mentioning vague concerns regarding NSA surveillance, he stressed that "it's hardly controversial that journalists reveal hypocrisy" and even went so far as to say that it was "certainly good journalistic practice."

You and I (and anyone else reading this thread) can easily look at the source comments and tell that my hypothetical news blurb is complete bullshit and the crux of your argument was left out entirely. So if the authors are willing to selectively quote from their expert source to avoid having their argument look bad, what else are they selectively quoting to make their arguments? This isn't like Reuters, AP, ITAR-TASS, Kyodo and half a dozen other major news agencies are on the ground writing about what they see as events unfold - Snowden chose which documents to gather, then chose Greenwald and Poitras specifically to give these documents to. These guys have the ultimate control over which documents get reported, what parts of the documents get shared with the public, and which documents get shared with which news agencies. The guy I quoted is stating that he feels Greenwald and the people he is working with had no qualms about selectively quoting from an expert source in order to keep their argument from looking weak. There's little risk to the authors in misquoting Stewart Baker - how many people read his blog? How many people here on HN know about the blog post before I linked to it? There's almost no risk whatsoever in selectively quoting a document from Snowden to make their point - no one has access to it except for the NSA and whoever Greenwald has allowed access.

From the NSA porno article, they pull out a few paragraphs to make their point - what's in the rest of the report? If the information regarding the inconsistency in the public/private lives of those 6 individuals was documented in a "previous SIGINT assessment report", why are they showing us this report instead of that one? Was that other report sent to the Departments of Justice, Commerce and the Drug Enforcement Agency, too? If the information in that other report wasn't sent to them, what information on those 6 individuals was in this report that would have been of interest? Better yet, why can't Greenwald just redact the identifying information and let us read the whole damn report for ourselves?

And it's not just that one. Here's a paragraph from a recent Washington Post article[1]:

One senior collection manager, speaking on the condition of anonymity but with permission from the NSA, said “we are getting vast volumes” of location data from around the world by tapping into the cables that connect mobile networks globally and that serve U.S. cellphones as well as foreign ones. Additionally, data are often collected from the tens of millions of Americans who travel abroad with their cellphones every year.

I have no idea who is saying what in that paragraph, beyond the fact that an anonymous collection manager said "we are getting vast volumes".

Why were the specific encryption systems that the NSA had compromised and the countries targeted redacted from the source documents that we were shown[2] in the BULLRUN leak? Everyone's up in arms about Dual EC PRNG, but that might not even be what that document was refering to. It would be trivial for the media to reveal it and end all doubt, but keeping it hidden and instead writing about how the NSA is betraying our trust and compromising the security of the same crypto systems that we all use makes a better headline.

Or one could ask why we only got a limited subset of the PRISM slides. What else is in there? Why can't we see it? Would that information invalidate their argument?

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-tr...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/05/us/documents-r...