This makes no sense to me. What is Snowden "confusing" here? Is he confusing privacy rights with free-speech rights because the latter is explicitly mentioned i

This makes no sense to me. What is Snowden "confusing" here? Is he confusing privacy rights with free-speech rights because the latter is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution while the former is only indirectly referenced? If that's the case, you do nothing to explain why it's odd, why it's puzzling to you, or what Snowden's confused about. His analogy does not fundamentally confuse anything; he's equating privacy rights to speech rights through a weak notion that having no interest for one equates to no need for the right. Privacy in and of itself might not be a right explicitly granted by the Constitution, but the analogy is clear and an accurate description of how ludicrous it is to give up a right because you see no need for it.