Ah, but disagreeing with a government, any government, is obviously terrorism. After all, if someone will disagree with one government, they might disagree with another too, like our government. The government can't allow that, so anyone daring to disagree must be swiftly punished, no matter which government they are disagreeing with.
Given the NSA's willingness to lie to those in charge, it's pretty obvious that nothing the NSA says can be trusted. That would include the intelligence reports that are the NSA's entire reason for existing. There's no reason to pay for reports you can't trust, so why not fire the entire agency, and divert the money elsewhere to something that's at least useful for more than a good source of bird cage liner material.
So at the same time as they are building up the world's biggest database of private information, they are also pissing off hackers around the world, and getting rid of 90% of the people who maintain their computer security. What could possibly go wrong with that.
In order to do what he did, I'd think Snowden had to believe:
1. That he had sufficient understanding of what he was leaking to make truthful judgments about it;
Given that his job was to analyze the intelligence gathered via this system, I think we can assume that to be true.
2. That his understanding and interpretation of the Constitution was superior to that of the Legislative branch and much, if not most, of Congress;
More like his understanding and interpretation of what was actually going on was far superior to that of the Legislative branch and much, if not most, of Congress. How many members of Congress have since come forward and said they didn't vote for that kind of spying, or didn't understand how widespread it was?
3. That his understanding and interpretation of the Constitution was superior to that of the Executive branch which is headed by a Constitutional lawyer;
Understanding the legality is one thing, being willing to stay within the law is another. All the evidence seen so far is that members of the executive branch were either willfully blind to violations of the constitution or else intentionally twisting the interpretation of the constitution in order to justify their actions.
4. That his understanding and interpretation of the Constitution was superior to that of the Judicial branch;
One court. One that deliberates in secret, that hears only one side of the story, and that produces judgements that are also secret.
If you don`t think one court can get things wrong, then I`d like you to explain why the rest of the legal system needs to have multiple levels of appeals to higher authority.
Re: foreigners likely actually DO have rights under the constitution
Most of the United States Constitution doesn't even apply to US citizens, and never did. When you read the constitution, you find that it's really a list of things the government is required to do, along with a bunch of things the goverment is forbidden to do. For example, US citizens do not have the right to speak freely. Instead, the United States Government is forbidden to restrict what people may say. The only way this can be applied to only US citizens is if the United States considers everyone not a US citizen to be somehow not a person.
Then again, given how little the US military seems to care about the harm done to innocent civilians in the war on terror, maybe the government does see non US citizens as subhuman.
The whole thing is a CIA plot to replace the government of North Korea.
The plan is to get a whole bunch of IP rights in North Korea. When they later apply to the North Korean courts to enforce those rights, the entire North Korean government will die laughing.
The funny thing is that none of the documents Snowden has leaked have revealed anything that could be considered a legitimate intelligence operation. What they have revealed is a massive illegal intelligence operation that at best makes any legitimate intelligence operation harder by burying important clues in a tsunami of irrelevant details.
>>The Government may not be legally allowed to execute the guy
>Um, yes, they are. It's called targeted killing.
United States Bill of Rights, Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The government cannot simply decide to kill someone without violating the constitution. Not that that seems to bother them very much these days.
You could look at each spot where a change might be bade as on bit.Make a change for a one, not make the change for a zero. If the goal is to identify each copy uniquely, you need a lot of possible change spots. Sixteen spots would allow for up to 65535 copies, which is probably a small run for an ebook. Will it be possible to find sixteen or more spots to change? Maybe. It will really dependva lot on the nature of the book.
Will it be possible to remove this tracking? Certainly. I'd even call it trivial to remove. Given several copies of the book,with different changes, a simple script could identify and correct the changes in seconds.
That's how the government eliminates crime. Sweep the real crimes under the rug, and stomp hard on anyone who dares point out that a crime occurred. Once nobody reports any crimes, the government can claim success because there are no reports of crimes.