I posted a five-part response on Twitter to Marc A, which he just retweeted (it doesn't mean he agrees with me, of course, but at least is a signal that he read

I posted a five-part response on Twitter to Marc A, which he just retweeted (it doesn't mean he agrees with me, of course, but at least is a signal that he read it): https://twitter.com/declanm/ https://twitter.com/declanm/ I think @pmarca is right in that many technologists suspected the scope of #NSA surveillance pre-Snowden (I’ve made the same point). 1/5 And @pmarca is also correct that early #PRISM reporting was spectacularly wrong (despite my efforts at the time to correct the facts) 2/5 But original documents matter, especially for legal challenges to warrantless bulk surveillance of Americans’ phone records. 3/5 @pmarca And Snowden’s acts don’t amount to treason, which is the one crime defined in Constitution. Don't fit definition. Shouldn’t. 4/5 @pmarca Snowden DID violate the #Espionage Act’s prohibition on “publish[ing]” classified SIGINT docs. But so did hundreds of reporters. 5/5 @pmarca Not only reporters. All you folks on Twitter linking to leaked NSA SIGINT docs are violating Espionage Act ("makes available..."). 18USC798