> It was my goal to do my best to break him as a person as much as I can with words.

Really? Wow. I am concerned at the lack of human decency, the unwillingness to at least conduct a civil dialogue about his point of view. "Breaking" a person is really quite manipulative, harsh, and implies their existing person and personality are 'wrong', and I am concerned that is even considered as a valid action. Even the devil deserves his fair day in court.

Why should he have a civil dialogue with someone who's working 40 hours a week to exfiltrate his personal private communications without cause? Do you sit car thieves down and explain how not having transportation for a month really hurt your feelings?

> fair day in court.

FISA? In my dealings with sociopaths, or merely the deluded, nothing sets the record straight like a public calling out on their bullshit.

The softly softly approach with these enablers doesn't work quick enough, unless you meet them regularly. You want the experience to stick.

Wow. With that approach, I fear that a lot of innocents will be hurt on your path to 'justice'. Whatever happened to 'It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer'?

Why are you conflating a traditional principle of jurisprudence with the right to free speech? These are entirely separate topics.

The point was to publicly challenge the people that work for the surveillance-industrial-complex. That is simply free speech. The other party has the right to yell back if the desire, or to simply leave[1]l.

    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

I fear that a lot of innocents will be hurt because of your support that you give by choosing to let these problems pass without challenge. Why should you expect anything to change when you withhold the necessary feedback necessary to correct bad behavior?

There is a difference between crude or vulgar name-calling/insults and challenging someone with language that is frank, strong, and maybe a bit rude. One is just trying to make people angry and the other is seeking to throw a bucket of cold water onto someone's naive or harmful point of view.[2]

[1] Free speech doesn't guarantee you an audience.

[2] Failure to understand this distinction is why some people perceive Linus Torvalds as being rude and "foul mouthed".

They changed it to "It is better that an entire country lose its right to privacy and security than... well, anything. Seriously, this shit is awesome, look at what my stupid neighbors are talking about on the phone"

An individual is not a court, and the courts are not holding the people responsible well, responsible.

I don't understand why someone would choose to say that the NSA or their workers are innocent, as we have mountains of evidence to their obvious malfeasance.

There is 0 path to justice in holding our government accountable, so welcome to the impotent rage of the masses.

A tongue lashing and a lashing are different. Is your day in court actual or metaphorical? Pick one instead of playing word games.

You are mistaken if you think people should only be taken to task within a court hearing.

In any case these guys are never going to court.

Doesn't it really depend on what the ten were guilty of?

Jaywalking, sure. Homicide, not so much.

Punishing murderers doesn't actually solve any problems unless you suspect them of continuing to do it. And punishing innocent people creates massive problems.

Anyone who promotes the idea that total surveillance over the entire population as a valid means of keeping order deserves not one iota of human decency - for they provide none at all to their fellows.

That you think so is very concerning, everyone deserves human decency. Your views sounds dangerously close to zealotry, the same sort of views that have harmed so many in the past...

It is the surveillance zealots you should be worried about, not those who would disallow the conditions necessary for them to continue to deprive us all of our rights.

Total Surveillance is a Crime Against Humanity.

Well if the threat is actually that severe maybe you shouldn't rule out physical violence? And who will enforce this oppression, the cops so we should hate them. And who will finance this future crime, the banks so we should hate anyone that works there, even the tellers. Embrace or deflect, no good comes from hate.

I don't support physical violence. But I do support shunning those who support the creation of the Total Surveillance State.

"I work for the NSA." Doesn't give me any useful information about their duties or role in the organization, but I know where they work. I imagine cover stories are more important when dealing with human intelligence assets (spies undercover).