Where I completely agree with you is presentation of topics. If he had focused only on domestic spying in the beginning, the conversation could have focused on that first and foremost, and then later the other stuff could be brought in without clouding the issues.

But this is only because I think that indiscriminate spying is wrong, no matter what your nationality. And I say this coming from a military spy background where I know that spying is completely necessary.

But shit, choose your targets, and choose them for a reason.

By engaging in illegal activity, the agency undermined it's legitimate spying of targets outside the country. If there were no illegal activity, there would be no need for whistleblowing. I'd chalk up any damage to the legitimate spying as a collateral damage and put the people who authorized the illegal activity responsible for such damage.

I find the argument that Snowden's actions didnt justify the consequences to our agents or relationships with other nations just short-sighted.

Although it may not feel like it to those of us immersed in tech as a culture and as an industry, we are still in the very early days of the Internet. We're still setting precedents that are going to be in place for lifetimes. That America has to patch some relationships, that a couple events may escape our gov'ts control, are small prices to pay to ensure that future generations are able to freely and safely explore and express themselves on the internet without fear of prosecution or persecution.

Sucks in the short term, but these are important issues to get resolved for the long term.

I don't think people are distinguishing between 'domestic' or 'foreign' spying. For most people, it's way too complex to have an understanding of domestic US laws on agencies spying powers. Also remember, it's not just the US either. Remember the UK is probably the most prolific gatherer (they have a much more strategic point on internet routing than the US does).

People reduce a complex and difficult to understand story into something they think they understand. In this case, Snowden is 'about spies' and 'spies track[/kill] terrorists' combined with 'I'm not a terrorist, so they won't be interested in tracking me' hence the whole story is irrelevant and only conspiracy nuts think the Government spies on them.

Any attempt to counter this and say, actually it is important because in 5, 10, 20 or more years, an agency can take a dislike to you (or some relative/connection) and then start to revisit things you have long since forgotten, and target you for some throw away comment, just sounds so far fetched as to be lunacy.

But, as the submitted article shows, it's exactly what is happening in other countries and there is no reason why 'our country' [insert name of wherever you live - not just the US] won't do the same. For domestic US readers, imagine a future President Trump issuing an executive order to track down those who insulted him, even in private personal e-mail conversations - it may be a crazy scenario, but the NSA database allows such a thing to happen.

The mass collection and storage of data is a real risk to any democratic society, because of the threat of misuse. Don't fool yourself that some official will say no when asked to carry out some heinous act made possible by access to the stored communications.

Getting tied up in whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero is missing the point. It's also where the NSA has focused on steering the conversation at every opportunity.