I don't understand why people were mad at Snowden.

>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.

Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.

I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.

I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.

I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.

Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.

I'm curious if his actions would still be unjust if he had exposed details on a company's actions instead of the government's. Or even if he had exposed details on a non-ally country's actions.

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.

Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.

I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.

I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.

I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.

Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.

So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.

>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.

Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.

I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.

I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.

I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.

Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.

So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.

Because what liberties the military has is most certainly relevant information to his type of view? He's an ideological defector, stop characterizing him otherwise.

He is a traitor. Dude exposes all this info, acts like he's doing the right thing, but then leaves the country. He knew he was wrong and that's why he ran like a little bitch.

You're aware there's a lot more he could have exposed but chose not to in the interest of protecting people? And yeah you'd run too if you were going to be unlawfully arrested.

Its not unlawfully. He BROKE the law.

>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.

Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.

I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.

I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.

I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.

Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.

So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.

Because what liberties the military has is most certainly relevant information to his type of view? He's an ideological defector, stop characterizing him otherwise.

You would think for an ideologue, he would have focused on domestic spying, not military operations and procedures that endangered people's lives.

But whatever. Keep eulogizing this prick who did more damage to our counter terrorism capabilites than he did to the government's capacity to spy on its citizens.

>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.

Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.

I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.

I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.

I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.

Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.

So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.

Because what liberties the military has is most certainly relevant information to his type of view? He's an ideological defector, stop characterizing him otherwise.

You would think for an ideologue, he would have focused on domestic spying, not military operations and procedures that endangered people's lives.

But whatever. Keep eulogizing this prick who did more damage to our counter terrorism capabilites than he did to the government's capacity to spy on its citizens.

What measurable effect did he have? How are you measuring this damage?

>'revealed' what we already knew then handed classified documents of military operations to the Russians on a silver platter.

Why do you pretend that Russia and China were not his best options for personal safety? Hell China isn't an entirely safe bet now.

I really don't care about his personal safety. He clearly had no concern for the personal safety of the undercover military personnel he revealed to innumerable terrorist groups.

I'm just thinking you need to stop implying he handed information to Russia because he wants Russia to have the upperhand. He was essentially forced to because he is only protectend there as long as he cooperayes with them.

I don't think he really cares who has the upper hand. He saw an opportunity to sell data to the highest bidder and took it at the expense of the safety of others.

Thinking this is solely about money is equally retarded, no one would take that risk just for wealth. It'd be more likely to land you a censor label in a document than where he is now. Just because what he did was irresponsible and unjust does not mean he had nefarious intentions.

So care to explain why the vast majority of files that Snowden leaked had nothing to do with government oversight of domestic activities? 90% of the extracted documents were related to military capabilities.

Because what liberties the military has is most certainly relevant information to his type of view? He's an ideological defector, stop characterizing him otherwise.

You would think for an ideologue, he would have focused on domestic spying, not military operations and procedures that endangered people's lives.

But whatever. Keep eulogizing this prick who did more damage to our counter terrorism capabilites than he did to the government's capacity to spy on its citizens.

What measurable effect did he have? How are you measuring this damage?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/snowden-leaks-could-cost-military-billions-pentagon-n46426
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/23/politics/nsa-surveillance-north-korea/

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.

It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night and a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.

It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.

How are data transcripts not my personal data?

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.

It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.

How are data transcripts not my personal data?

Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. Everything is surrounded in anonymity. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.

It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.

How are data transcripts not my personal data?

Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.

But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.

It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.

How are data transcripts not my personal data?

Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.

But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.

All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.

It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.

How are data transcripts not my personal data?

Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.

But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.

All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.

...so because my right to privacy makes it difficult for the government to spy on me, I should feel bad?

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.

It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.

How are data transcripts not my personal data?

Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.

But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.

All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.

...so because my right to privacy makes it difficult for the government to spy on me, I should feel bad?

Except the NSA isn't spying on you. You are conflating the examination of metadata which is completely anonymous and discreet with the actual invasion of someone's data. I'm not sure what else to say. Metadata is not your data, nor is it anyway linked to your privacy.

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.

It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.

How are data transcripts not my personal data?

Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.

But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.

All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.

...so because my right to privacy makes it difficult for the government to spy on me, I should feel bad?

Except the NSA isn't spying on you. You are conflating the examination of metadata which is completely anonymous and discreet with the actual invasion of someone's data. I'm not sure what else to say. Metadata is not your data, nor is it anyway linked to your privacy.

I'm not sure what you call collecting data [metadata or otherwise] on your citizens if not spying.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Simply put, metadata is data about data. It is descriptive information about a particular data set, object, or resource, including how it is formatted, and when and by whom it was collected. Although metadata most commonly refers to web resources, it can be about either physical or electronic resources. It may be created automatically using software or entered by hand.

The underlying concepts of metadata have been in use for as long as collections of information have been organized. For example, the information structure for materials in library card catalogs is a type of metadata that has served as a collection management and resource discovery tool for decades.

https://kb.iu.edu/d/aopm

An example of metadata would be mp3 tagging; things like album art, track title, album name, track number, and genre. The music itself isn't metadata, just the things that describe it in the file.

Everyone was perfectly willing to sacrifice their privacy to massive conglomerate corporations so they could get access to Google and Facebook for free, but as soon as the NSA was 'revealed' to be collecting metadata (which requires a legal warrant to investigate, and really has no bearing on your personal privacy) it was immediately painted as this huge comic book tier government conspiracy.

...you don't see the difference between being able to choose what information you publish online, and the information the government gathers on you without your consent?

Information being what exactly?

I feel like I need to emphasize this again, since you guys really don't understand the concept of Metadata.

Think of it as a catalogue. A descriptive list of what kind of data is being recorded. The NSA have absolutely no legal basis to investigate this data without a probable cause and a warrant.

Whilst I agree that the NSA has been getting a bit too big for its britches, this narrative that they were the American iteration of Big Brother is just patently false.

I take no issue with the NSA requiring a warrant to investigate. My issue is that any data is being collected by default.

But my point remains that there is a difference between the information I willingly post online versus the information that is collected by the government without my consent.

It's not even YOUR personal data though. It's just descriptive transcripts of what kind of data is being communicated.

It's basically the difference between a police car patrolling the streets at night to a cop busting down your door without a warrant or a probable cause. The latter is illegal, the former isn't.

How are data transcripts not my personal data?

Because metadata is simply data that describes the data. They aren't allowed to open up your emails or trawl through your bank account history contrary to what everyone believes.

But that metadata is describing my personal data. I don't understand how you can separate the two. Regardless of what they can actually "see", the fact that any data is being collected by default is the issue. Data should only be collected once a warrant is obtained.

All that would do is render counter terrorism and domestic threats so astronomically difficult to tackle and you'd still have just as much privacy as you did before.

...so because my right to privacy makes it difficult for the government to spy on me, I should feel bad?

Except the NSA isn't spying on you. You are conflating the examination of metadata which is completely anonymous and discreet with the actual invasion of someone's data. I'm not sure what else to say. Metadata is not your data, nor is it anyway linked to your privacy.

I don't think you really understand what metadata is...

What exactly do you think it is then?

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

I didn't link that to pick a side, Slash; both sides of the debate accused the other of misunderstanding metadata, so I thought it would be beneficial to link an explanation and provide an example.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Cops need less evidence to get call info on Joe Drug Dealer than the NSA needed to investigate known terrorists.

I mean, I'm all for exposing government muck-ups, but exposing the identities of undercover agents is kind of a shit thing to do.

I agree. Their lives are probably at stake. But maybe there was a specific reason behind it. Snowden seems like the type to plan everything out.

More than likely those agents don't use their real names undercover. If their name was leaked and not their exact location of operation, it really doesn't do any harm. He leaked a name they aren't known by

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Look, we can debate the etymology of metadata until the cows come home tbh, but I don't think it would be as intellectually stimulating.

Point is, Snowden's 'revelation' had very little if anything to do with the government's domestic spying activities, and using him as this paragon of liberty is as bad as the SJWs using Anita Sarkeesian as an idol for women's rights.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.