So I thank tptacek for sharing what he knows that I don't know. That is, after all, why I come here.
We could close down all news sites and stop reporting on all crimes - because, hey, the cop, the robber and the victim knew already hours ago that somebody had been robbed.
The argument that something should be a no-story, just because I personally suspected/knew about it already for some time screams of delusional self-importance worldview to me.
But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that
people are just now discovering that NSA was breaking
into computers around the world.
Perhaps somewhat, but not really. I read the word 'people' in the sense of 'some group' instead of 'any single person.' In other words, 'people now know that eggs aren't bad for you' doesn't mean that every single person has learned this, just that the knowledge is in the generally accepted body of knowledge and those with business or interest in nutrition know it. At least that's how I read it.
I think that leveling a claim of intellectual dishonesty at someone who thinks that everyone else was as ignorant as they were is a bit harsh, and sort of inflammatory.
I think that most people would reasonably believe that if there were such strong signals that the NSA was doing this it would be closer to public knowledge than it was.
Explain them as "business as usual" to take away the outrage.
Might as well have been explaining the actions of the KKK.
I didn't take it that way. In fact, you could argue for more outrage: "There are certain groups who knew about this behavior all along and for them to pretend that this is news to them is bullshit" is how I read it.
So if you are going to be outraged, you should be outraged at the groups "in the know" as well.
It was unexpected for me, but I think it is important for us to understand that it wasn't unexpected for everybody. It's kind of like if we found out that Gitmo really wasn't exceptional. That would be important.
It would imply that this something is a standard practice, many groups are aware of it and for some reason, over time and through many events, they've decided it's the best policy that they can hope for (or else they would have blown the whistle earlier).
It means you should consider changing policy carefully, because the policy was put in place (and stayed there) not on a whim but rather after some consideration and re-consideration. Unless you think that all of these groups are filled with horrible people whose only aim is power and control you might have to allow that some of them have different insights into the problem from their experiences.
Please understand that I'm not defending anything- just showing how it could be important to learn this type of information.