[whatshisface]

>one should wait for the law (or the lawsuit) to know how it is enforced in reality.

Of course, as we discovered that the NSA was gamboling, if you're doing it in secret, and the secret that you're doing it is protected by law, then if you do something illegal, it won't be legal to take you to court...

[IAmEveryone]

This assumption (i. e. that everything bad is done anyway, only in secret) is a truism. People who buy into this sort of cynicism will rely on the non-existence of evidence as evidence of their theory of all-powerful government able to suppress all evidence.

The idea is also destructive for any effort to improve matters: if everything and everyone is corrupt, there's no point in trying to hold anyone to account. And if those in power continually get hit with the wildest accusations people can think of, they will at some point abandon the idea of trying to do a good job and/or being honest because there are no incentives whatsoever when the discourse is dominated by narratives that are no longer in any way tied to their actual behaviour.

[whatshisface]

Assumption? I was describing a historical anecdote.

>if everything and everyone is corrupt, there's no point in trying to hold anyone to account.

What's your plan for holding anyone to account without limiting secrecy? Seriously, there are zero ways to have accountability to the public without the public knowing what they're judging. The authority knowing the facts is the absolute most basic element of decision-making, and it precedes all other organizational or procedural designs.

>if those in power continually get hit with the wildest accusations people can think of,

No accusation was made. I am merely pointing out that there is no system of accountability. Zero accountability plus human nature plus power always leads to the same thing - and although we don't know the details, we can be sure there's some kind of mold growing under the counter so to speak.