> Gives credence to what/whose concerns? The concerns that there are leaks not in the public interest, which harm our[1] military's capabilities to defend us.

> Gives credence to what/whose concerns? The concerns that there are leaks not in the public interest, which harm our[1] military's capabilities to defend us. If I were opposed to the west (Israel/US/UK), this is not only great military intelligence, but a fantastic propaganda opportunity. > If Israel were spying on US drone video transmissions, and a "traitor" in the Israeli security apparatus leaked that info to the press, would it still be harmful for the "public" to know? Would we be upset? Yes. Is Israel likely to release volumes of public condemnations of US/British intransigence in this case? Absolutely. Does that make it unethical? No. More on this in a second. > It really weirds me out the degree to which people seem to moralize these brain-dead spy games. It's like we're already in state of paranoid pre-war. Information is the most valuable asset for survival. Knowing what will happen or how someone will act is incalculably valuable, across pretty much every field. - Engineering: Why do we "spy" on our servers with analytics, logging, and alerts? Because it helps us make the right decisions. - Product: Why do we "spy" on users with tools like Heap or Mixpanel? Because it helps us make the right decisions. - Military: Why do we spy on other world powers? Because it helps us make the right decisions. - Business: You know the hardest parts of building a business? People. We have a lack of information (it's hard to get into their heads) which leads to a lack of perspective which leads to a lack of empathy. > but its not OK for citizens to spy on their own government Is it right for HR to know things about you but you cannot access everything they know about colleagues? Yes. Unless you have a legitimate interest (outside of "I'm interested") in knowing information that could cause others harm, you don't deserve to have it. You have elected officials who are informed on a need-to-know basis about the programs done in your name. Do they always make the right decisions? Absolutely not. In those cases, leaks are in the public interest. In cases like this, how are you better able to defend yourself with this information? > If it's of no interest to the public, then surely the secret was not a secret at all, and there was no harm in leaking it. I'm saying it is _against_ the public's interest to leak it, because the NSA is doing their job and this harms their ability to do so. If the NSA were doing something outside its job (e.g. dragnet surveillance) and a leak harmed its ability to do so, that leak is actually in the public's interest because they are protecting themselves. [1]: "our" in this context is democracy and/or the western world.