> The only rational response to this is deep, deep skepticism. Do you apply the same statement to all world religions? At least that would be consistent, but i

> The only rational response to this is deep, deep skepticism. Do you apply the same statement to all world religions? At least that would be consistent, but it is also starting out of the gate with a very hefty dose of hubris. It is more reasonable to respond to the article as, just some for-profit paper's entertainment piece. It's reasonable to assert that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's reasonable to criticize the U.S. government for an excess of secrecy, an overuse of classification. In 1959 the DoD had 12 meter resolution spy satellites. And 0.6 meter resolution spy satellites by the early 1980's. Those captures were never released nor leaked to the public contemporaneously, it would be decades before it was declassified and released. But let's take your "only rational response" is skepticism, and apply binary logic to the outcomes just to keep it simple: you believe the report is 100% true, you believe the report is 100% false. Let's take the false case. That necessarily commits you to the NSA being either incompetent or malevolent. If the NSA, with its vast resources, is engaging in either gross negligence or is malevolent, that means contemplation of the higher likelihood of deaths of millions: negligence or malevolence does not reduce the risk of death, for sure. And now you're confronted with rebel's dilemma as NSA is a domestic threat. What you do by saying the only rational response is skepticism, is commit yourself, morally and ethically, to arriving at certainty. Not hand waving that the burden is on others. You just placed the burden on yourself.