> I am a bit bothered by the general response, "They would win this argument if they allowed themselves to tell you everything" that is often given in support of the spies.

I don't think they're winning the argument here, at least not as far as public approval. It's completely anecdotal, but I've noticed something interesting about the kinds of responses people have on the subject: people who don't follow the issue at all tend to completely disapprove of Snowden, call him a traitor, cite terrorism, etc.; people who are somewhat passionate and read all of on the subject tend to have the polar opposite opinion; and people who go into extreme depth on the subject (reading all of the leaked documents, reading the laws, watching the debates and the congressional hearings, etc.) tend have much more nuanced opinions. It's hard to have debates on the subject because of both the amount of secrecy involved and the amount of misinformation floating around. I think the NSA needs a big adjustment to how it handles interactions with the media if it's going to gain any traction with the public. At the same, the American public needs to come to grips with the fact we employ people for the purpose of spying, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

> I mean, you can call it traitorous, but you seem to be saying it was totally unnecessary, when its release caused a law to be drafted and voted on that probably wouldn't have otherwise.

Actually if Snowden had stopped at the domestic phone records collection program, I don't think many people would really have much issue with him. It's everything that came afterwards that bugs me. The 215 program was and continues to be very controversial. What doesn't help the debate is the amount of misinformation about the program. The PCLOB laid the entire program out in one of their reports[1], and several officials have summarized exactly how they are using the data and what they're allowed to use it for (see [2] for example), but it continues to draw arguments citing things like this[3] where they include several types of metadata that the NSA isn't permitted to get like location data, names, message content. I'd love to see someone to do a research paper where pull the exact types of data collected under this program from 100 or so phones and say 'this is the actual information we were able to obtain from it'. I've done it myself on a very small sample of phones (3 phones over about two months) and made some interesting conclusions, but nothing like some of the detractors have made.

I'm not saying that legitimate violations of the law shouldn't be reported, but we haven't seen that. What we have seen a lot of is 'look at this tool/program that NSA is using', then an insinuation that it could be used against anyone without actually showing who it has been used against or why. The giant revelation that Glenn Greenwald promised showing actual Americans who were targeted by the NSA ended up instead showing 5 Americans that the FBI through FISA warrants. If something bad is going on, I want to see actual wrongdoing, not potential for wrongdoing. The police have the technical capability to indiscriminately gun down every person they see, but no one is arguing that we should disarm them based on something they could do.

> Around here, we're all wondering if we will be personally hacked because of one user (or potential users) on a system we have authority over, and what consequences that could have on our personal life and reputation, employment, and our company's reputation.

I think one of the biggest problems that has arisen from the Snowden revelations is that it's completely upended people's perceptions of the threat model. Telecommunications providers shouldn't be surprised that they're a target, because they would be a prime target for hackers even if there weren't any intelligence services. They sit in a very privileged position on the internet. For the most part, I'd say the people that have to worry about being targeted by the NSA or any other intelligence service already knew ahead of time that they were potential targets. If you don't deal with anything pertaining to national security issues or provide means to gain access to national security information, your primary concern should not be the NSA (or GCHQ/Mossad/FSB/BnD/etc.)

This leads to lots of bad security practices as people try to secure themselves from the NSA but leave themselves more vulnerable to more plausible threats. Tor is a primary example - it might hide you from someone trying to target you specifically, but will make you significantly more vulnerable to someone who doesn't care who they're attacking (i.e. just about every criminal). Articles like this[4] made me cringe: battered women were seeking some means to escape from their abusive boyfriends/spouses, and the Tor Project managed to convince them that they would be safer from them by browsing the web using Tor.

With regards to William Binney, he hasn't worked in the agency for nearly 15 years, so I don't put much credence into anything he says after 2001. His description of ThinThread, which he advocates, sounds terrifying: instead of trying to filter out and discard as much domestic communication as possible, ThinThread apparently takes in all of the communications and encrypts the domestic traffic for later use if they obtain a warrant. It's hard to definitely evaluate it without a more detailed technical description, though.

[1] https://www.pclob.gov/library/215-Report_on_the_Telephone_Re...

[2] http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/former-nsa-head-michael...

[3] http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-data-retention

[4] http://www.betaboston.com/news/2014/05/07/as-domestic-abuse-...