We should separate Greenwald and Snowden from the debate about information security and privacy. Those two are not part of the real conversation, even though they got it rolling and they both know what they are talking about. It is just talk, and neither of them has the best interests of the public in mind. Both of them are mad at the world–one is a traitor, the other is living in Brazil and launching destructive articles north.
Snowden went on a rampage after not being promoted, and Greenwald wants to make other people as angry at American life as he is–which might not be easy.
However, both speak well. Snowden did put his finger on one important issue: how bad it is when a government depends on its people being uninformed. Greenwald is a bright guy too: he has talked a lot about how collecting everything is the same as collecting nothing.
What is good about their input ends there. Timothy McVeigh 2.0 and his news contact have done a lot of damage to global security. Those two are not on the side of good security, the topic of this blog. They stand for just the opposite: instability and danger.
IT security companies everywhere, to include Patriot COMSEC, have a responsibility to do what they can to keep security products out of the hands of bad guys, and to put real security products into the hands of normal people.
One would think that lawyers, medical professionals, whistle blowers, negotiators, business leaders, and all law-abiding folks would have the right to communicate freely and privately, without the chilling effect of eavesdropping. Collection has gotten so intense and widespread that America relies on Julian Assange, a rapist; Edward Snowden, a traitor; and Glenn Greenwald, an angry activist, to stick a sharp pencil in the eye of the NSA Cyclops. One imagines James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, and George Marshall as spinning in their graves.