Sure, sure.

Independently verifiable. That's why we had the Debian OpenSSL PRNG fiasco [1]. Your reponse to deterministic builds? "Not needed, its open source after all, independently verifiable." Of course it is needed, just because its open source doesn't mean you can trust the provided binaries. Heck, there was a time where Debian didn't even sign .deb packages. Also, nevermind the spaghetti of OpenSSL and Heartbleed which lead to BoringSSL and LibreSSL.

Yet, its important to realize we don't assume malice here. We don't assume these people who did this were evil until we have substantial proof. Their track record and positions suggest such as well. We assume they're innocent (albeit, ignorant), and that is BTW also in the HN guidelines.

> Hilarious when people speak down to you like this. You're inflating my (very clear, i feel) statement to mean something I don't think i said.

How so? You claim we should be suspicious of everyone.

At the same time, you provided no proof which suggests we should doubt Snowden's motives, generally or specifically. Only vague rhetoric.

> Its easy to demonize others whom you disagree with

No, stop shifting the blame. YOU are the one who is demonizing someone else (Snowden) without anything to back up your claims. Instead of this theater, put your money where your mouth is and show us your proof.

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number...