Snowden, why didn't you just stop while you were ahead.

@above: would you mind clarifying your sentence? Its sentence structure makes understanding difficult.

OP states that the information leaked in this instance constituted a 'breaking point' that was somehow worse than previous leaks. However, doesn't provide details on how this is the case. Having skimmed over some of the headers, sparse information is provided therefore begging to question how one can make such a call. My impression is that the OP hasn't bothered to check the formatted 'source document' and has instead relied on the tone of the article in passing their own judgment.

Uh you can technically lose many freedoms. Freedom of expression, freedom of congregation, freedom from imprisonment. If a government takes one away, very few individuals have the resources to fight back.

You should have grasped in my prior post that I find ideas like 'freedom of congregation' and 'freedom of imprisonment' to be a debasement of my belief that no matter what has happened, is happening, or will happen to an individual they always possess an uncompromisable ability of choice. I suspect that you brought freedoms into this discussion as a matter of thought-train consistency with respect to you elaborating on your initial promotion that America should hold to being a free country. However, we are discussing two very different things. My prior post was more focused on the discussion of freedom as it exists as a concept. Your response is a discussion of how institutions implement the concept of freedom as freedoms. Are we good? Because I actually typed up an entirely different response before realizing that it was just easier to explain how I feel that this was a conversation over cmanticks.