> That's why you really do have to rely on the law to tell you what's right Firstly, he did: those programs clearly violate the 4th amendment, regardless of wh

> That's why you really do have to rely on the law to tell you what's right Firstly, he did: those programs clearly violate the 4th amendment, regardless of what a secret court says. But I suppose you meant one has to rely on the legal system, not law. But even applied to law itself, that's a very extremist position if applied consistently. Let me elaborate: > If you asked 10 different NSA employees at the time whether they thought the mass surveillance was ethical or not you'd probably have gotten 10 different answers There's a big difference between merely thinking it's unethical, and thinking it's so unethical they're willing to go against the intelligence apparatus of the USA and become a fugitive from the global West to shed light upon it. I wouldn't want to live in a country where every ethically-inclined person followed your thinking. Such rigidity is a fast way to pathological results, as long as they are "legal". And unethically-inclined people of course won't follow your thinking, and will institute some Kafkaesque legal procedure for anyone that wanted to challenge their programs.