Did you even read the article/mail? The author makes a lucid argument which you totally fail to address: > And so—before the capability was made public, it _li

Did you even read the article/mail? The author makes a lucid argument which you totally fail to address: > And so—before the capability was made public, it _likely_ wouldn't > have been used against mere political nuisances, at least not without > the additional cost of creating a solid pretext for the resulting > intelligence. But now this deterrent is gone: the burden of utter secrecy > is reduced. And if these programs are not eliminated, greatly curtailed, > or made moot, we can expect them to be employed much more freely.