[mavdi]

Given the latest world events, I've personally come to realise that security agencies play an important role in keeping us safe, from external entities or from ourselves.

This is disaster in my (current) opinion. We tend to dismiss the work the likes of NSA do, not thinking much about what would happen if they didn't do it. Snowden categorically dismissing anything that NSA does, just means he's a deluded idealist, much like I used to be.

[apeace]

> Snowden categorically dismissing anything that NSA does

That's not representative of Snowden's opinion at all. From the beginning he's always stated he believes in the mission of the intelligence agencies. Heck, he used to work for one.

"I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA" [0]

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edwar...

[cyberpunk]

I don't think he dismissed anything, he simply exposed what is currently happening.

We make a kind of deal with our governments, some things we agree to be kept in the dark about for security reasons (specific intelligence or some clandestine operation or other) but I don't think that deal covers the kind of surveillance snowden exposed and I don't see at all how exposing the actions of our governments is deluded or idealistic: can you elaborate?

Why would you prefer not to know what your government is doing when knowing doesn't break the 'willful ignorance' contract we entrust these people with?

[Twisell]

Or maybe we just need more traditional intelligence because focusing on identified threat based on field intelligence is more effective than spying on every communications and hope to somehow filter relevant data point over noise.

If I two terrorists agree to act when a nyan cat is posted on a specific Facebook account no neural network can help you manage the threat. Human based investigation and infiltration on the other hand can lead to real world judiciary actions.

[int_19h]

This implies, without evidence, that all of the work that NSA does is directly related to keeping us safe. I wouldn't be so quick to lump it all together like that.

Then, of course, there's also the objection that "keeping us safe" is not an absolute. There are many ways to keep people safe, but they're so extremely onerous that we don't practice them. Totalitarian societies with pervasive open surveillance (think 1984) are very safe, for example, but at what cost? So clearly there's a balance, and one can't just dismiss any concerns about the cost of that safety by saying that it's necessary - it has to be demonstrated that it is (i.e. that the gains from that increased safety justify the losses from intrusiveness).

[aub3bhat]

I agree, to quote Mike from breaking bad.

"Just because you shot Jesse James, don’t make you Jesse James.”

Snowden is skilled at data theft and not a source of wisdom when it comes to surveillance.

The liberal media (hate to use that term) is equally complicit. They have trotted him around as source of wisdom. The leaker of Pentagon Papers had a position that allowed him to asses the subject matter. Snowden on the other hand was a sysadmin.

[mavdi]

Indeed we can either believe the world getting irreversibly worse after these leaks, is just a coinsidence, or somewhat related.

A lot of people died, it would be naive to think snowden's actions didn't contribute to it. However noble his intentions might be.