MSNBC Anchor Says Snowden is a Distraction

[spooky3]

24. Vague opinions expressed by the quoted official do not constitute evidence and

do not address my point about the specifics.

If, for example, you went before even one of the TV judges and said your neighbor's post about you on Facebook had caused you "great harm" but provided no evidence, even they would laugh you out of their courtroom.

Further, Snowden himself was quoted by the same article that you linked as saying:

"I don't know what specific information they were looking for on these machines, only that using technical exploits to gain unauthorised access to civilian machines is a violation of law. It's ethically dubious," Snowden said in the interview on Wednesday.

If he is correct, then (a) even he doesn't know many specifics (other than IP addresses, which he obviously mentioned to the media to provide specific evidence of wrongdoing in what was probably the least harmful way) and there is no evidence of genuine harm to the US from his revelation, and (b) these governmental actions are illegal and unethical and we have no right to engage in them. We know THOSE ACTIONS harm us and our reputation throughout the world (as well as harming others) and that should be a concern. And it is more than a little ironic that we have criticized China for hacking into private computers in the US to steal intellectual property, etc., if we are also hacking into private computers there.