> it seems like the NSA & co. would be gleefully trumpeting such a thing if they knew it.

I don't think so for two reasons:

1) they don't talk much about anything unless they absolutely have to for classification and vetting reasons (this gets into topics like overclassification and whether or not things are really necessary for national security - but that's a different debate). For example, the op-ed that Michael Hayden wrote[1] in the USA Today in response to the 'NSA audit reveals thousands of violations' articles was apparently originally going to be written by the NSA itself, but the declassification and vetting process prevented a timely, point-by-point response[2]. I'm surprised that the e-mail was released so quickly. Overall, the NSA's response has been bumbling, and I think that has a lot to do with existing public relations policy that doesn't fit well with a fast-moving media.

2) There's a pending court case, and it's usually good policy to stay mum about anything regarding any pending cases until afterwards. I don't know that it's necessarily good policy now, as Snowden is probably never going to come back and face trial, but he is still indicted.

> Does he just hate the entire current US intelligence sector in general? Well, he's not keeping that a secret, so it shouldn't really be a mark against his credibility.

No, it's an indication that we should treat the leaks may have a skewed perspective, and we should keep that in mind when evaluating them. The credibility issue comes into place when he gets on national television and tells the American people “I reported that there were real problems with the way the NSA was interpreting its legal authorities. And I went even further in this, to say that they could be unconstitutional, that they were sort of abrogating our model of government in a way that empowered presidents to override our statutory laws. And this was made very clear. And the response was, more or less, in bureaucratic language, was, ‘You should stop asking questions.’"[3] The e-mail he sent did in fact ask a question about legal authorities, but nothing like what he described to the public; there were no concerns raised at all. Even his description of the response was a lie: instead of 'you should stop asking questions' the guy said 'Please give me a call if you'd like to discuss further'. On top of that, the e-mail was sent months after he first contacted Greenwald and Poitras - he was almost on his way out the door to Hong Kong at that point. That's the kind of stuff that speaks to his credibility. When you know that he hates the NSA and will make bald-faced lies on television should raise some flags when evaluating the leaks.

This is getting away from the Snowden credibility issue and more to issues with the reporting, but ...

> If he just brought every document about PRISM,

... for which all of the reporting turned out to be wrong. They blew a massive intelligence source over perceived mass civil liberties violations when the truth ended up being 'We can get content on specific accounts from Google/Yahoo/etc. when we present them with a court order.'

> or just the Verizon metadata arrangement,

... I probably wouldn't have had so much of a problem if he released that one and stopped there. Even so, the details from initial story still didn't match reality. On top of that, the program has debated at length in public and in Congress since it was initially disclosed back in 2005[4].

> or just personally hacking sysadmins at telecoms,

1) I don't care that GCHQ hacked Belgacom - it does not affect me at all; 2) we still lack a lot of context behind this - Why did GCHQ break in? What information did they obtain? Where they using this access to spy on legitimate intelligence targets, or something we would object to? The story was presented simply as 'they hacked a Belgian telecommunications company - be outraged!'

> or just tapping Google's private fiber lines, or just tapping Yahoo's private fiber lines,

I'm pretty sure Google and Yahoo didn't lay their own transcontinental undersea fiber optic lines. That's the nature of the internet - at some point your communications pass over lines owned by someone else. I'm a lot more angry at Google for not bothering to encrypt their transnational data than I am at GCHQ for intercepting it - that means the intelligence services of EVERY country their traffic passed through had access to it.

> it would not be near as powerful as showing they are doing all of the above, and more!

I agree with you there!

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/18/nsa-privacy...

[2] http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/beyond-snowden-ns... (search for 'interagency')

[3] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-releases-snowden-email-nbc...

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pa...