This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit.
The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed.
This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
Exactly. Where is the accountability for the government officials who deprived us of our rights in the first place? There's been none. They made a few perfunctory gestures toward self-control, and kept right on violating the Constitution in the same ways under programs with new names.
The problem with the Government is that the people in power feel like they have all the power and don't want to let it go. I think that robots would serve us better.
I see the same issue with the other debate raging on HN: Stallman and Free Speech.
The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal.
One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing.
Someone else responds with what is legal: the law applies to government curtailment of free speech, or there was a contract in place.
Laws should reflect values, not vice-versa. What is legal should not be confused with what is right.
Note: I am not taking a moral position myself here. I just wish the legal position would not short-circuit the debate about what the correct moral position ought to be.
The laws against publishing classified information only apply to people who are authorized to have it in the first place. As soon as that info makes its way to someone who is NOT authorized to see it, they can legally do whatever they want with it.
There is no legal definition of "journalist" in this context.
Acting members of Congress can do it in a roundabout way, as long as they do it while speaking on the floor. Anything they says becomes part of the Congressional Record, which is available to the public and de facto unclassified.
> The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists.
Everyone has the right to publish classified information, unless they've signed an agreement not to. There's no Constitutional difference between journalists and non-journalists.
The form itself may not, but it doesn't stand alone. There is the constitution, possibly legislation, legal precedent and gloss, and ultimately, the rulings of a jury, judges, and courts of appeal.
Which is why we have a rule of law and a justice system, and not simply contracts.
Surely this has nothing to do with moral objections and simply to do with the law.
The US Government took away citizens constitutional rights, and Snowden told everyone about it.
I like to think that even if Snowden is convicted of that, then that forces the US government to be convicted of wrong-doing also. i.e. you can't be convicted of telling secrets that aren't true.
Jury nullification gets its teeth from the principle of (no) double jeopardy: once a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty of a charge, they cannot be re-tried on those same charges.
(There are an increasing number of loopholes, including of charges in another, or higher, jurisdictions, and/or on different charges.)
The prosecution has no right of appeal. The defence does.
This is not the case in a civil suit. Either party (plaintif, here, the US government, or defence, here, Snowden) may appeal an unfavourable decision, through courts of appeal or ultimately the Supreme Court.
Jury nullification specifically does not apply to this case.
This is not a criminal case, judging guilt for crime; it's a civil contracts case for injunction against profits, per the NDA.
And citizens not bound by the NDA, who happen into the information (as would be the case with numerous US-citizen reporters who've written on the Snowden stoy while including specifics of his information disclosures) are not enjoined. At least not in this case.
The NDA does make it remarkably difficult for anyone with specific insider knowledge to publish and profit by disclosure.
NB: I am a space alien cat, not a lawyer. I'm not defending any position, publication, or contract, or questions of possible criminal prosecution. Just clarifying what is at hand, and what language applies.
Because, AFAIK, there’s nothing binding the government from enacting a law against treason or espionage. So they did a century ago. The problem is not that (depending on who you ask). The problem is that they’re abusing “national security” to justify needing secret courts and claiming a legally protected action (whistleblowing[0]) is illegal.
Snowden got a job handling classified material. The government only trusted him to handle that material because he signed various contracts that said he would keep the material secret and that he would allow the NSA to read anything he wanted to publish so they could be sure he didn’t accidentally leak something (and, potentially, so they could plan for damage control).
This lawsuit is not actually about publishing classified material, but about not giving the NSA a chance to read his book before it was published. Since that’s a contract interpretation issue, and since there’s a law specifically making this contract legal, and since it’s a civil lawsuit (e.g., he can’t go to jail because of this particular lawsuit), I believe the government has a very strong leg to stand on.
I’m not saying this is what the law should allow. But I don’t expect the court to rule this law unconstitutional.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The constitution does not explicitly enumerate a right to privacy.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) explicitly established the right to privacy. Justice Douglas’ opinion states that such a right exists within the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the constitution. As there is no explicitly enumerated right, strict constructionists may oppose this interpretation.
Katz v. United States (1967) established a two part test to determine whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given circumstance:
"first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'"
Smith v. Maryland (1979) established the basis for the government’s claim that the data collection program is permitted. The case focuses on whether an individual has an expectation of privacy for metadata they willingly give up to a third party. The court found that a warrant is not required to collect such information.
There's an episode of the West Wing that goes into this, "The Short List". One of the characters, Sam Seaborn is questioning a nominee of the supreme court about his position on privacy. It's classic Aaron Sorkin writing, but it might address your question.
This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit.
While I applaud what Snowden did, the issue in this case is quite a bit different than what you have portrayed here. The issue is whether or not he violated the terms of his NDA. And of course he did, in a gigantic and very public way, and then admitted it and has given many speeches about doing it, wrote a book about it, and had a movie created portraying it.
Sadly, this is an open and shut case. I am not even sure why he would defend it though, as the case is a “Grenada” [1] and a judgment from a US court will have zero effect on him while living in Russia.
What? No, this is a lawsuit for violations of the NDAs Snowden signed with NSA & CIA in particular regarding not submitting his manuscript for pre-publication review.
Well, they claim the citizens of other countries are not protected by the US constitution. Not that I agree with them, but it might be harder to challenge this in courts.
Any country with resources is doing it to allies and adversaries alike and selective outrage requires top-shelf cherry picking. Everything is tapped everywhere.
>>This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
He can do whatever he wants but he has to suffer the consequences. Every state has secrets and employees with top clearances learn them by swearing to keep the secret. He can go to Congress or through the chain of command....or risk jail and financial ruin. Otherwise a CIA ex-chief could write a book and name all US spies in China or Russia...
”The United States’ lawsuit does not seek to stop or restrict the publication or distribution of Permanent Record. Rather, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, Snepp v. United States, the government seeks to recover all proceeds earned by Snowden because of his failure to submit his publication for pre-publication review in violation of his alleged contractual and fiduciary obligations.”
What? Either he released inappropriate material and it should be pulled, or he didn’t, and they should leave it alone. It is my understanding that a breach of contract does not entitle one to compensation unless one can show damages. By making this statement, they seem to be saying that there are none.
They’re basically saying “he doesn’t actually reveal anything problematic, we just want to steal the profits for this work, because we don’t like him and we can.”
No, it sounds like a run-of-the-mill breach of contract lawsuit.
As alleged, Snowden signed a contract where he agreed to do certain things, X, for the right to do Y. He did Y but then didn't do X. And now the counterparty is suing for damages under the contract.
The US government has limited power to stop publication, so all Snowden had to due was submit the manuscript for review, reject any requested changes, and then go ahead and publish the book in its original form.
I would say it's more like the 50% tax on drugs: yes it is illegal to sell (illegal) drugs, but if you still do it, then you need to pay taxes on the money you make selling them.
They either get you for doing the illegal thing or for the money you should have paid them while doing it.
It sounds to me like they're trying to discourage other CIA/NSA/TLA agents from running off to a place like Russia and writing their own tell-all, even if those books are benign.
“The United States’ ability to protect sensitive national security information depends on employees’ and contractors’ compliance with their non-disclosure agreements, including their pre-publication review obligations. This lawsuit demonstrates that the Department of Justice does not tolerate these breaches of the public’s trust. ..."
That sounds like a reasonable explanation. Granted, I would not be surprised if that was only a small fraction of the real reason, and the vast majority is like you said: "because we don't like him and we can."
For those wondering, the purpose here (part of a multi-pronged approach) is to restrict his income and seize his assets. The less money someone has access to, the less power they have. This makes it harder for him to live day-to-day, restricts his access to experts who won't work pro-bono, and ultimately will hurt his criminal defense should he ever return to the USA.
These guys don't fool around. Expect more pressure from other angles as well.
I strongly agree. Since Snowden himself is presumably in Russia, the U.S. government is effectively attempting economic sanctions against him. Their method is to scare anyone that might send him money with a lawsuit.
Can't Snowden's publishers just use the Irish tax loopholes and bill the US corporation "intellectual property" rights with the same value as the profits? So that the book's profits are 0?
This would also provide a strong justification for closing said loopholes.
I am afraid that it is not even a significant portion of the population that is pissed.
If it was, then Snowden leaks wouldn't have been almost forgotten in 5-6 years. People seem to have accepted governments can do whatever they want without any consequences.
Edit: Wanted to clarify that I am not even talking about the US, as part of the leaks it was revealed that NSA was listening to Angela Merkel's Phone. Germany has already forgotten that it seems.
If I'm ever sent a resume that lists employment at the CIA, NSA or DOJ, it's going straight into the circular file. Red flag that they lack morals.
Since the CIA won't allow past employees to list their work experience, their taint has leaked onto anyone ever employed by the State Dept or govt contractors as well.
Courts have thrown out NDAs before because they were unreasonable or unconscionable - Snowden would argue that he signed an NDA under the pretense that the government was behaving according to its' own laws, and that the NDA should be thrown out because that reasonable expectation was violated.
Whistleblower laws are a con. Principled reporters have never been treated fairly in the US. It's the same crap as "responsible disclosure"; it just gives the organization time to assemble the cover up. Publish without warning in the public interest, and the public will see the truly responsible party with their hands unclean.
Graciously give them six months to clean up their act, and they will instead use it to clean up their mess--which is actually just you. Publish afterward, and you will find that the plan to discredit and humiliate you was already loaded and ready to fire.
Nobody in this discussion seems to have mentioned the word "advance". Snowden has already been paid for this book, and the advance will have been negotiated with the expectation that it will be difficult to pay any additional royalties.
Has Snowden's contract with the publisher been exhibited yet? It'll be interesting to see if there's anything funny in there.
Can one of the internet lawyers out there explain why this is a civil lawsuit, and not a criminal lawsuit?
I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other.
Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?
There is already a separate criminal suit; this one is just trying to prevent him from profiting from his book, due to it (allegedly) containing intelligence info and violating his NDA.
From the link: "This lawsuit is separate from the criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. This lawsuit is a civil action, and based solely on Snowden’s failure to comply with the clear pre-publication review obligations included in his signed non-disclosure agreements. "
I especially like the fact that he can’t fly back to the US since he has no passport, but at the same time he is being prosecuted. It’s been so long, why even care? Who is running the show on this?
A criminal charge has no effect as he can't actually be brought back for trial and can't be tried in his absence.
If you sue someone, you can serve their intermediaries (his bank or publisher etc). So then the case can proceed. By getting a judgement they can seize US book revenues.
Its a pretty cheap move imho but I think that's the logic: if you can't do something at least look like you're doing something.
Because no criminal charge that rests solely upon openly publishing facts would ever stand up against the 1st Amendment.
Before any cleared individual ever touches or sees classified materials, they sign an NDA that establishes personal responsibility for protecting classified material. This is separate and distinct from the criminal espionage and treason consequences, but they do their best to make you think they are closely tied with the training materials.
As it happens, openly publishing as a protected right is hugely different from the criminal act of selling or gifting secrets to a foreign adversary, so a civil suit is all they can do.
And given that it is a civil suit, Snowden would have a reasonable shot at an "unclean hands" defense, if the judges were truly impartial and objective.
The thing people seem unable to do with Snowden is separate the intention of his actions with the impact. I have no doubt he had the right intentions. Informing the people of the gross violations of civil liberties is a noble endeavor.
However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real people in the field were put into actual danger as a direct result of his actions. US National Security was hampered as a result. The biggest rejoicers were arguably our two biggest threats: Russia, whom we have been fighting a proxy war in the middle east for ages now, and China and that alone should tell you something. People who believe they are doing the right thing for their country were endangered, and my country's ability to keep us safe was hampered.
Surely there was a way to let the appropriate people in charge know about these programs, and maybe had a greater possibility of enacting actual change, because as it stands right now, while we are more informed as a people, exactly zilch has changed since 2013.
You can say this about any whistle-blowing activity, really. In the short-run it's always better for stability to cover-up your crimes. I think there are 2 straightforward rebuttals to this:
1. It seem strange that you're blaming the whistleblower, and not the people who violated the constitution to begin with. This is (vaguely) like blaming the dentist for the pain of a root canal instead of your poor eating & hygiene.
2. In the long run, trust in its institutions is critical to US power. The US was a good place to do business specifically because you could trust that you would be treated fairly, speak freely, and the government shouldn't be spying on you. If these institutions stop working, the trust will eventually go away.
You suggest there could be some sort of "other way" that would actually enact change, that way is US citizens voting for lawmakers who care about this.
The fact that zilch has changed has nothing to do with him. We are the electorate and if people really gave a damn about it, which most people don't because this is too abstract and far from concrete for them, then things would have changed or at least started to. The biggest thing that's been done is Apple advertising privacy as a feature in their product releases.
Please show some evidence as to why you think the country's ability to keep us safe was hampered? Has the government shown anywhere that an attack that could have been thwarted wasn't?
People need to get off their high horse. Mass collection of data isn't a method of security. It's a method that's used to try and make up for lack of it. Let's collect all the shit we can and hope to find a needle in a haystack. We have more serious issues to take care of in this country. Sick people are walking around toting assault weapons and IMHO a large swath of the population is suffering from some sort of mental illness which is being allowed to rage unchecked.
Surely there was a way to let the appropriate people in charge know about these programs
They've been informed. Perhaps not in a way that you or they might approve of, but they've certainly been informed, loudly and clearly.
Of course,
zilch has changed
It would be a mistake to assume that blowing the whistle quietly, politely, and up the chain of command, might have had better results. The only difference would be that the public would still be in the dark to this very day.
It's hard to buy the party line these days. The intelligence services come across as gigantic incompetent bureaucracies. They didn't prevent 9/11, concocted fake WMDs, thousand drone strikes later they are handing Afghanistan back to the Taliban, were fast asleep to the dangers of Fake news/Social Media issues and had no clue where Trump or Brexit came from. After all that why do you believe them?
Readit News
The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed.
This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government removes their constitutational rights.
The SF86 form offers no leeway for moral objections. So in such a scenario, it would be better to not submit the SF86 form in the first place.
The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists.
The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal.
One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing.
Someone else responds with what is legal: the law applies to government curtailment of free speech, or there was a contract in place.
Laws should reflect values, not vice-versa. What is legal should not be confused with what is right.
Note: I am not taking a moral position myself here. I just wish the legal position would not short-circuit the debate about what the correct moral position ought to be.
There is no legal definition of "journalist" in this context.
The only people I am aware of which published this were journalists, since day 0.
E: I see this is particularly in the context of his publishing his memoirs now after reading the filing. My apologies
POTUS can also do it.
Everyone has the right to publish classified information, unless they've signed an agreement not to. There's no Constitutional difference between journalists and non-journalists.
Which is why we have a rule of law and a justice system, and not simply contracts.
The US Government took away citizens constitutional rights, and Snowden told everyone about it.
I like to think that even if Snowden is convicted of that, then that forces the US government to be convicted of wrong-doing also. i.e. you can't be convicted of telling secrets that aren't true.
It just makes it a perfect candidate for jury nullification!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Jury nullification gets its teeth from the principle of (no) double jeopardy: once a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty of a charge, they cannot be re-tried on those same charges.
(There are an increasing number of loopholes, including of charges in another, or higher, jurisdictions, and/or on different charges.)
The prosecution has no right of appeal. The defence does.
This is not the case in a civil suit. Either party (plaintif, here, the US government, or defence, here, Snowden) may appeal an unfavourable decision, through courts of appeal or ultimately the Supreme Court.
Jury nullification specifically does not apply to this case.
Strictly, no.
This is not a criminal case, judging guilt for crime; it's a civil contracts case for injunction against profits, per the NDA.
And citizens not bound by the NDA, who happen into the information (as would be the case with numerous US-citizen reporters who've written on the Snowden stoy while including specifics of his information disclosures) are not enjoined. At least not in this case.
The NDA does make it remarkably difficult for anyone with specific insider knowledge to publish and profit by disclosure.
NB: I am a space alien cat, not a lawyer. I'm not defending any position, publication, or contract, or questions of possible criminal prosecution. Just clarifying what is at hand, and what language applies.
[0]: Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act
This lawsuit is not actually about publishing classified material, but about not giving the NSA a chance to read his book before it was published. Since that’s a contract interpretation issue, and since there’s a law specifically making this contract legal, and since it’s a civil lawsuit (e.g., he can’t go to jail because of this particular lawsuit), I believe the government has a very strong leg to stand on.
I’m not saying this is what the law should allow. But I don’t expect the court to rule this law unconstitutional.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof...
https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-th...
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) explicitly established the right to privacy. Justice Douglas’ opinion states that such a right exists within the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the constitution. As there is no explicitly enumerated right, strict constructionists may oppose this interpretation.
Katz v. United States (1967) established a two part test to determine whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given circumstance:
"first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'"
Smith v. Maryland (1979) established the basis for the government’s claim that the data collection program is permitted. The case focuses on whether an individual has an expectation of privacy for metadata they willingly give up to a third party. The court found that a warrant is not required to collect such information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaEBXmeaXbI
While I applaud what Snowden did, the issue in this case is quite a bit different than what you have portrayed here. The issue is whether or not he violated the terms of his NDA. And of course he did, in a gigantic and very public way, and then admitted it and has given many speeches about doing it, wrote a book about it, and had a movie created portraying it.
Sadly, this is an open and shut case. I am not even sure why he would defend it though, as the case is a “Grenada” [1] and a judgment from a US court will have zero effect on him while living in Russia.
[1] https://youtu.be/5yhxTyYEF9s?t=24s
What gives the NSA the right to capture private data from other countries?
[ asking because i don't know ]
He can do whatever he wants but he has to suffer the consequences. Every state has secrets and employees with top clearances learn them by swearing to keep the secret. He can go to Congress or through the chain of command....or risk jail and financial ruin. Otherwise a CIA ex-chief could write a book and name all US spies in China or Russia...
What? Either he released inappropriate material and it should be pulled, or he didn’t, and they should leave it alone. It is my understanding that a breach of contract does not entitle one to compensation unless one can show damages. By making this statement, they seem to be saying that there are none.
They’re basically saying “he doesn’t actually reveal anything problematic, we just want to steal the profits for this work, because we don’t like him and we can.”
But once something is published, they can take action against the publisher/author.
As alleged, Snowden signed a contract where he agreed to do certain things, X, for the right to do Y. He did Y but then didn't do X. And now the counterparty is suing for damages under the contract.
The US government has limited power to stop publication, so all Snowden had to due was submit the manuscript for review, reject any requested changes, and then go ahead and publish the book in its original form.
NDA available via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20998966
They either get you for doing the illegal thing or for the money you should have paid them while doing it.
“The United States’ ability to protect sensitive national security information depends on employees’ and contractors’ compliance with their non-disclosure agreements, including their pre-publication review obligations. This lawsuit demonstrates that the Department of Justice does not tolerate these breaches of the public’s trust. ..."
That sounds like a reasonable explanation. Granted, I would not be surprised if that was only a small fraction of the real reason, and the vast majority is like you said: "because we don't like him and we can."
These guys don't fool around. Expect more pressure from other angles as well.
This would also provide a strong justification for closing said loopholes.
I am afraid that it is not even a significant portion of the population that is pissed.
If it was, then Snowden leaks wouldn't have been almost forgotten in 5-6 years. People seem to have accepted governments can do whatever they want without any consequences.
Edit: Wanted to clarify that I am not even talking about the US, as part of the leaks it was revealed that NSA was listening to Angela Merkel's Phone. Germany has already forgotten that it seems.
I don’t say it to be rude, but it’s similar to my coastal liberal friends thinking their bubble opinion applies in Ohio.
Since the CIA won't allow past employees to list their work experience, their taint has leaked onto anyone ever employed by the State Dept or govt contractors as well.
The excerpt I saw was about trying to enjoin Macmillan to transfer them any money they were giving Snowden & any agents, etc.
Wouldn't a great defense here be that the NDAs shouldn't be enforced because the actions covered were criminal? I mean, isn't that standard with NDAs?
Graciously give them six months to clean up their act, and they will instead use it to clean up their mess--which is actually just you. Publish afterward, and you will find that the plan to discredit and humiliate you was already loaded and ready to fire.
This could be a chance to get this before the courts, was my actual (badly communicated) point.
Has Snowden's contract with the publisher been exhibited yet? It'll be interesting to see if there's anything funny in there.
I'd think that if he committed an actual crime, it would be a criminal suit. I thought civil suits were for people trying to get money out of each other.
Or is this like how the feds couldn't get Al Capone for murder so they put him away for tax evasion?
From the link: "This lawsuit is separate from the criminal charges brought against Snowden for his alleged disclosures of classified information. This lawsuit is a civil action, and based solely on Snowden’s failure to comply with the clear pre-publication review obligations included in his signed non-disclosure agreements. "
No, both of those were crimes. They just incarcerated him on the one with the easiest case to convict.
Civil cases are often contractual cases. He had access to confidential information; they are essentially suing him for violating an NDA.
Deleted Comment
If you sue someone, you can serve their intermediaries (his bank or publisher etc). So then the case can proceed. By getting a judgement they can seize US book revenues.
Its a pretty cheap move imho but I think that's the logic: if you can't do something at least look like you're doing something.
Before any cleared individual ever touches or sees classified materials, they sign an NDA that establishes personal responsibility for protecting classified material. This is separate and distinct from the criminal espionage and treason consequences, but they do their best to make you think they are closely tied with the training materials.
As it happens, openly publishing as a protected right is hugely different from the criminal act of selling or gifting secrets to a foreign adversary, so a civil suit is all they can do.
And given that it is a civil suit, Snowden would have a reasonable shot at an "unclean hands" defense, if the judges were truly impartial and objective.
Deleted Comment
However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real people in the field were put into actual danger as a direct result of his actions. US National Security was hampered as a result. The biggest rejoicers were arguably our two biggest threats: Russia, whom we have been fighting a proxy war in the middle east for ages now, and China and that alone should tell you something. People who believe they are doing the right thing for their country were endangered, and my country's ability to keep us safe was hampered.
Surely there was a way to let the appropriate people in charge know about these programs, and maybe had a greater possibility of enacting actual change, because as it stands right now, while we are more informed as a people, exactly zilch has changed since 2013.
1. It seem strange that you're blaming the whistleblower, and not the people who violated the constitution to begin with. This is (vaguely) like blaming the dentist for the pain of a root canal instead of your poor eating & hygiene.
2. In the long run, trust in its institutions is critical to US power. The US was a good place to do business specifically because you could trust that you would be treated fairly, speak freely, and the government shouldn't be spying on you. If these institutions stop working, the trust will eventually go away.
You suggest there could be some sort of "other way" that would actually enact change, that way is US citizens voting for lawmakers who care about this.
Please show some evidence as to why you think the country's ability to keep us safe was hampered? Has the government shown anywhere that an attack that could have been thwarted wasn't?
People need to get off their high horse. Mass collection of data isn't a method of security. It's a method that's used to try and make up for lack of it. Let's collect all the shit we can and hope to find a needle in a haystack. We have more serious issues to take care of in this country. Sick people are walking around toting assault weapons and IMHO a large swath of the population is suffering from some sort of mental illness which is being allowed to rage unchecked.
They've been informed. Perhaps not in a way that you or they might approve of, but they've certainly been informed, loudly and clearly.
Of course,
zilch has changed
It would be a mistake to assume that blowing the whistle quietly, politely, and up the chain of command, might have had better results. The only difference would be that the public would still be in the dark to this very day.