There are the actual programs (or, in the case of Prism, the program). Collection of metadate. Surveillance of overseas emails. That sort of thing. Old stuff.
Then there are the claims about stuff surrounding the programs. The ability for anybody, well, if they have sufficient authority, to eavesdrop on phone calls of anybody in the US within a few seconds of making the decision to eavesdrop. The claim that he's done so.
The claim, or at least the inference, that the data extraction is automatic, in real time, and all-encompassing without the need of a court order. For both all telephone call information as well as Internet metadata and, to be as thorough in one's inference as possible, Internet data.
This would be one of the biggest intelligence leaks in history. Sort of. It leaks precious little actual intelligence, to be honest. Manning leaked more intelligence. But it's less importantly in geopolitical terms--the Manning oath-breaking in pursuit of his own morality mostly confirmed what had been said and pointed out a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff that led to pretty much nothing. The Snowden leak would point out pretty much nothing, if people were paying attention, but calls all kinds of stuff to the potential bad guys' attention. And, if the last couple of charges are true, could create some really serious damage for the NSA and other intelligence services.
Now, for the eavesdropping/listening-in claim he should have some evidence. He doesn't. He has a claim that those who have always believed the government were doing these things whole-heartedly (already) believe(d).
Same for the all-encompassing "everything's monitored" claim. Another "I want to believe" moment.
He does adduce "evidence"--but the evidence, although light, has extreme angular momentum. In other words, it's being spun at a prodigious rate. It doesn't confirm what he says--it's merely consonant with what he said. It can be taken as being in agreement with what he said. But it's also in agreement with what Obama's administration's said. It's all in the interpretation, in what context you want it to have. That's sucky evidence.
However, the information he does provide, although old and out of context, is taken by some as indisputable confirmation of the unconfirmed claims. A simple CT sacn--a "critical thinking scan"--puts most of the "largest intelligence leaks in history" claim on hold.
= new reply since forum marked as read
