Exactly, they are ending the one that was exposed. They did the same thing with the TIA after 9/11 ending it in May 2003.

We need a constant stream of Edward Snowdens so we know what our own free country is up to.

On the flipside, if you were tasked with security in the US and you had everything at your disposal, you'd go as far as you could into privacy until the people noticed and pushed back. So it is important that this is a constant battle.

There's also the possibility this is all a Limited Hangout - COINTEL Tactic

Ignore video - read description. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wApOHk92Ds

I only bring this up as it is within the realm of possibility. Especially with the massive media narrative surrounding the entire thing. Although it seems a little too conspiracy theory for people to sink their teeth into the possibility.

The sheer amount of spying operations makes me think its sincere on Snowden's part. If it were truly a limited hangout operation, why would they release so many programs? Why not only 1 or 2? What would they be trying to distract the general population from? What could their agenda be behind doing this at all?

The closest "agenda" they could be trying to push is the "necessary backdoors to circumvent encryption then we wouldn't need all these spy tools for mass surveillance" pitch that kinda flopped for obvious reasons.

E:

To clarify there can be other reasons for a limited hangout. For example, to test the water of the governments control over the population. How many people have you seen that hold the opinion Snowden is an American Traitor who should be killed?

That is a red flag to me that there are Americans who trust the government enough to forego their own privacy for promised security, even when the security has failed to be delivered. This is good testing grounds to see "how far the government can push things" to keep control over the population. Knowledge is power - and the government is collecting it en masse on its people.

We've learned enough from history that brutal dictatorships end in downfall of the leaders. What about a complacent "ownership" where the 99% slave away for the 1% in rather blissful happiness of their situation? It's not all bad, they make a decent living after all, why would they ruin it with a revolt? If I were part of the 1%, that would be my goal. Keep the 99% happy and make my life an easy one where I can do anything I like.

All speculation and philosophical thinking to spark discussion of course.

At the very beginning I thought Snowden was a plant, mostly because he claimed to have hundreds of thousands of docs but was releasing very few, but as time went on and more kept on being leaked I realized it couldn't be.

The American population tends to forget about incidents mere months after they happen. Small releases over time was how Snowden made sure that people did not forget about it. I believe he even stated that was why he handed over the documents in large groups, but not all at once.

I do not think he is a plant. * Puts on my conspiracy hat * But maybe that's what they want me to think?

If true, another Snowden, Binney, Drake, or Wiebe will emerge to help end it.

It would be a fallacy to assume that every secret abusive program has a whistle blower, just because every secret abusive program we know about has had a whistleblower. It's like saying "there's no such thing as the perfect crime". Well, maybe, but if there were, we wouldn't know about it.

I agree, but my theory is that any mass surveillance program will necessarily employ a quantity of highly educated and intelligent people. People capable of interpreting the 4th Amendment for themselves and responding ethically, as the existing whistleblowers have done.

They're not ending anything. This bill makes the spying slightly less egregious, while explicitly authorizing and extending the spying.

> They're stopping that one spy program everybody knows about

Yes, I'm sure it will stop.

I actually wonder what the NSA will do if this legislation will pass. I believe they used an excuse in Court before that they "can't" shut down the program (or a similar one). So would they actually shut it down or rename it and move it to a different facility? Who gets to verify that they're going to obey the new law? The Intelligence Committee members that already oppose the new laws?

Yeah, at this point I'm pretty sure the NSA doesn't give a shit what Congress says. If Congress cut off their funding, they'd make it up by orchestrating the sale of arms and/or drugs on the black market, and keep right on doing what they're doing now.

They'll do everything they did until now and more[1].

[1] https://www.usafreedom.fail/

I think the NSA will continue to spy. They might go to the trouble to hide it from Congress, but I doubt it, and I doubt Congress will actually care.

Here's your answer: according to https://www.usafreedom.fail/ this act doesn't actually restrict the NSA. In fact, it extends the spying powers of the NSA. So they'll continue what they're doing, and do more of it.