Well considering thanks to the NSA US tech companies are now seen as highly suspect and not to be trusted, you can bet that's going to lead to some pretty hefty loses there. Perhaps not immediately(ducking out of huge contracts tends to have some hefty penalties), but when it comes time to renew those contracts...
The RSA might have gotten a nice 10 million to sell out their security and reputation, but in exchange no one serious about computer security is likely to trust them ever again, so I imagine that 10 mil is going to seem rather small in the coming years.
Who's speech has been silenced?
If you don't think that having someone looking over your shoulder, even if it's just a suspicion, won't change your actions, maybe make you leery of posting something lest it be 'taken the wrong way' by someone with an axe to grind, then you haven't thought the matter through enough.
If you've got some evidence that the information those reporting on the NSA are presenting is false, by all means, present it, but just trying to shrug them off as 'known propagandists' isn't likely to get you taken seriously.
'If you abandon your principles during a crisis, you were never principled in the first place.' -Unknown
And, I hope you realize, but you pretty much just proved my point there. The idea that it might not be perfectly safe to uphold the rights in the Constitution, that it's acceptable to sacrifice liberties and rights in exchange for a false sense of 'perfect safety' is exactly the kind of thinking the Franklin quote is aimed at.
If you're willing to sacrifice rights and liberties just to feel 'safe', you deserve neither the rights you hold so in contempt, nor the illusionary 'safety' you so desperately want.
Ah, but here's a rather important question: how many of those polled know just what a farce of a 'trial' he would face, should he return to the US?
How many of them think he would be able to defend his actions as a whistleblower, explaining why he did what he did, rather than just 'Did he do X, yes or no?'
Take away the context, the reason for the actions, and the trial would be a joke, a parody of justice, as why is central to his actions(and the actions of any whistleblower), and yet it would be something he would be forbidden to argue or bring up in court.
Thing is though, you walk out of a crooked poker game, that's it, it can't affect you past that. Walking away from a court case that can very much affect you in the future though? That's not 'good advice', that's sheer stupidity and/or hubris.
So basically, your stance is that violating the Constitution is necessary to protect the Constitution. That kind of shit scares me more than terrorists.
As it should, given that stance is doing their work for them. After all, what need does a terrorist have to attack a country, to destroy their rights, freedoms, and inflict harm on the country and destroy the trust the people have in it if the government itself is willing to do so all on their own, whether from panic or a hunger for power?
Moreover, that is the stance of a coward, someone willing to give away any right, weaken and destroy the rights of the people just to get a temporary feeling of 'security', before even more rights are sacrificed so they can continue to feel 'safe'.
Destroying rights for some phantom feeling of 'security', hmm, I wonder if any historical figure has ever weighed in on that one...
'They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.' -Benjamin Franklin
Would make for an interesting scheme, but given it relies on the SC acting sane with regards to copyright, and ruling widely enough to affect more than this one case, it would also be a dicey plan to say the least.
And that's assuming the SC didn't just punt it back down for the lower courts to fight over, these days they don't really seem to care much for doing their jobs, much like the rest of the government.
As the saying goes, [Citation Needed], [Citation Needed], [Citation Needed].
Now, you are correct on one part, people are waking up to the 'most massive media deceptions in American history', but that 'waking up' has little to do with Snowden, and everything to do with how eager the MSM is to eat up and regurgitate the USG's talking points, and never, never call them on their lies, with a few notable exceptions.
People are also slowly waking up(slowly due to an unfortunate amount still believing the MSM's job is reporting, rather than PR and spin) to the fact that the government has been lying directly to them about their actions for years now, and is about as trustworty as a clinically diagnosed kleptomaniac in a curio shop with no cameras or staff.
So evergreening(believe that's the term), attempting to break the deal of patents by extending the duration with a useless bit tacked on so they could pretend it was new enough to warrant another patent, yeah, if that's the case no wonder they got it shot down.
After a court case proving that their actions are illegal, sure, but before, no, even if someone's actions appear on the surface to be dicey, they still deserve to be able to defend themselves before being silenced by mere accusation.
Before worrying about extending lives, it would probably be a better idea to focus on improving the ones we have currently, with stuff like better healthcare, clean water, enough food... you know, the little stuff that's just kinda important, yet still problematic in numerous places around the globe.
So in other words you basically just got a pat on the head, told 'The grown-ups are talking, go back to your toys, there's nothing here for you', and shoo'd off.
Always nice when a politician is that open in their contempt for the intelligence of the people who voted them into office, it's a moment of honestly that's more often than not quite rare when dealing with that lot.
They say DRM is here to stay for their products? I can accept that. Of course in return my money will also be staying safely in my wallet, or spent on products put out by companies who don't show such boneheaded contempt for their customers.
They keep their DRM, I keep my money, I'd say that's a win-win all around.
A nice simple list of congresscritters who obviously are just aching to exit out of that boring job and into the exciting world of lobbying, hopefully come next election people will remember this and help them out by voting for someone else.
My first thought was it could make any future 'trade deals'/negotiations difficult, if they get a reputation of refusing to honor the terms in them(the US apparently does so all the time, but few countries are willing to stand up to the US sadly), but considering it's a 'trade deal' that got them into this in the first place...