I think this is a good article, and I agree with Mr. Masnick that it's worth pointing out. If words meant nothing, they wouldn't spend so much time trying to redefine them, as is the case here. Another example is their attempt to redefine the mass surveillance in the US as 'bulk collection', as though to suggest that they only collect it, period.
"I have, and share a Tails torrent, which is open source, Tor enabled, Linux based, used to be anonymous, used by Ed Snowden and Bruce Schneir, but just exactly when do I use it? Everytime I visit my bank? When I want to send an email? Those are both online, and not particularly in my control."
You use it when you want anonymity online, which is not the same as encryption. You should use a VPN for banking and email, not Tails or tor, and you should only trust that VPN up to the TLA point, and not beyond that. These tools can do a lot but it is critical that people understand what they do and do not do.
Glad someone mentioned LUKS. Great for many reasons, including the ability to separate the header (where the keys are stored) from the data itself. Works even better when you're entire drive is filled with random data first.
The only damage done has been to the government's credibility, and they have only themselves to blame for that. You clearly don't have a clue if you think that voting makes any difference these days.
"A patriot would stand up in the United States and make his case to the American people. But he?s refused to do that to this date, at least."
He already has made his case to the American people, and continues to do so.
"But this is a man who has done great damage to his country, violated his oath which he took when he became an employee, and yes, in fact, stole an enormous amount of information and released it to the public, to the detriment of his country."
No, he has not done any damage to his country, only to it's governments credibility, which it itself arguably caused. He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and he is still not among those who have violated it. He released that evidence to responsible journalists, to the benefit of his country and countrymen.
"QUESTION: Have you softened your stance at all with regard to his alleged conduct here? I noticed earlier this year you said that there were disclosures about the NSA made because of Snowden that you yourself were not aware of that constituted NSA overreach. Does that change the calculus at all for you?
SECRETARY KERRY: That?s entirely up to the justice system."
Yes, of course, laws are made to outline punishment and recompense for crimes, not to actually prevent the crimes themselves. That's a matter for enforcement, and why we are faced with the enormous problem of enforcement's absence, as you know.
I just wanted to point out, not to you specifically, that something doesn't become legal (even a law or court ruling) just because those who stand to benefit from it say that it is. I'm really responding to these propagandists more than anyone else, because I enjoy language, and I am disgusted by what they try to do with it.
Indeed, or who else took information and quietly sold it on. The only 'damages' caused by responsible journalism in these matters is the real damage caused to government's credibility, and the same government has only itself to blame for that.
Only a criminal would cry foul when evidence of their criminal activity is brought to light, especially in the context of a gigantic, hyper-secretive government.
It is true, legally. They'll try to tell you otherwise at every turn, but it is true. That's why their criminal activity is exactly that. All one really needs to understand is that the US Constitution is the highest law of the land, and that in order to change or nullify any part of it requires a Constitutional amendment.