"...word games the NSA and its defenders will use to increase spying"
They don't use these word games to increase spying, they use them to increase legal ass-coverage for spying that they already do.
It's quite plain that when a novel technique is available to them, they do not wait for supporting legislation before they use it, they implement it completely and if they think anyone will find out and object, only then do they task their spin masters to provide retroactive legislation "reforms" justifying it.
When one assesses Hayden as a bumbling idiot or the rest of the players in this and any other government operation (TSA, war on drugs, voting machines...) as incompetent, one is measuring them by the mandate specified in their job description - i.e. to serve the American public, to further the needs of the American people as a whole.
While these people are reading the relevant legislation via their secret decoder rings, they are also completely dismissing the mandate that the rest of the world is measuring them by and instead following their own agendas. And by those agendas, they are far from incompetent.
Each of these "incompetent" initiatives is _extremely_ competent at transferring taxpayer wealth to the corporations that supply the equipment and manpower to implement the programs. Is a $100-million abandoned software project an example of incompetence? Yes, if you measure it by the stated mandate. No, if you measure it by the software company's agenda. Is a prison system overflowing their capacity a problem? Yes if you measure it by their expressed mandate. Not at all if you forklift your skids of profits from the penitentiary-building industry.
Whenever you hear of government incompetence at levels such as this, look for the beneficiary of the "incompetence" and turn your perspective around. You will find that these are some very competent folks.
They also seem to have some amazing foresight. I have been intrigued more than once at the speed with which expensive scanners or voting machines have been ramped into production and distribution and pushed through certification following on the introduction of the legislation that enables them. It's uncanny.
I've said it here before, the rule they use to justify their actions is selected wayyy after they decide to do whatever it is. They are going to do it anyway, loophole or not.
It's not the loophole's fault that it's happening, it's just the excuse they are using. They would just find another loophole or lacking that simply tell you there is a secret law authorizing it that you're not allowed to ask about.
The fact that they used this particular terrorism law to "justify" Miranda's detention is a red herring.
The fact is that they were going to stop him and take away his electronics in any case. Pulling some regulation or other out of a hat to apply as a reason for nosy parkers who ask is simply a necessary annoyance to the authorities.
If this law had not given them the convenient allowance to detain him and take his stuff, they would have found another. I'm sure some copyright law would have been the next choice.
The point of Schrodinger's Cat is that quantum physics dictates that the cat under that set of circumstances must be considered simultaneously to exist in both states.
Thusly, (if the already tenuous analogy were to be stretched even further) until they listen to a file to determine if it is infringing, they can say that it both is and is not, a condition no doubt likely to bring a smile to a certain Mr. Clinton.
You can guarantee which side the copyright lobby would choose to decide is the determining state; it's not so clear which the courts would decide trumps the other in this hypothetical overextended analogy world.
I don't see the investigation's upside in delaying reading him his rights if truly that is all it is - a delay in explaining to him the rights he still maintains whether or not he is aware of them.
On the surface they seem to be contending that not reading him his rights will give them extra leeway in interrogating him. This would only hold if they were in fact suspending his rights themselves and not just his right to be made explicitly aware of their existence.
The only advantage I can see to this tactic is to set a precedent to be used as a wedge to erode the rights themselves, not just the right to know about them.
I would be only too glad to hear of a less pessimistic explanation. Why take on the downside of trial complications unless there is much more at stake than telling him something he probably already knows?