You have no conclusive proof of that and can therefore not conclude that logically. There's no way to measure what damage was done publicly; given that the general public sees very little of what clandestine services see, the general public cannot judge that.
Yes, but as you pointed out neither do they. The concept of innocent until proven guilty would provide logical justification for the statement that until evidence has been disclosed that the disclosure of this information directly endangered human lives, it cannot be said that it did. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that he did indeed do this, and so far they've failed to prove that.
I'm sure there are operations that could be declassified if they were to back up the claims of government officials. Remember, information remains classified even after the operation has ended.
It's also important that we make a clear distinction between damage US credibility and the international profits of major US tech firms from directly endangering human lives.
Yes, they could be gilding the lily
Interesting metaphor, and not one I've ever heard used in this context. However, it definitely wouldn't be the first time intelligence officials have outright lied to congress, the courts, and the general public to further thier own agenda.
Too many things may be secret and classified, but that doesn't mean that nothing should ever be secret and classified nor that criminal elements should never be tracked and monitored.
To claim that nothing should ever be classified would be asinine and demonstrate a lack of understanding of international intelligence and military practices as a whole. I was in no way claiming that and apologize if it came across that way.
However, the fact that the US intelligence community has interpreted section 215 of the patriot act to have quite possibly the most sweeping effect of any legal provision in US history, as well as the fact that it is used far more often in drug related cases than in actual terrorism operations, and that evidence gathered in such a manner can be lawfully used in court through a method known as "parallel construction" because the actual methods of gathering it are classified, thus circumventing the exclusionary rule is justifiably cause for alarm.
The NSA intentionally weakened common encryption standards to something they knew they could break, blatantly lied to the FISA court and exceeded thier authority granted by the court multiple times, which is essentially their only form of judicial oversight, and repeatedly made Americans less safe, is reason enough for severe reform.
The Snowden disclosures really didn't confirm anything that the people dubbed "conspiracy theorists" hadn't already been saying for years. It's truly disturbing when the people society considers "tin foil hat nutjobs" turn out to be right.
Despite the disclosed information and public outrage, most of these programs continue to be in effect and remain almost entirely unchanged. Meanwhile, the government has done nothing to prove that we actually benefit from thier blatant disregard for the 4th amendment.
"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." - 4th amendment to the United States Constitution.
Somehow, that part in bold text has been thrown straight out the window, and dragnet surveillance would be the greatest example of that. The NSA has interpreted those words to mean "vacuum up everything".
To argue that we should just go with it and pretend nothing is wrong is borderline treasonous as well as both morally and logically fucked up.
you are considered a potential terrorist and a threat to the United States government until proven otherwise, and that's a lot more difficult than it sounds