Overall I'd like to commend the writer of this document on what has been by far the most neutral writing I've ever seen on this topic. The writer still takes jabs at the NSA here and there (NSA and Tor, for example), but generally the tone is very neutral.
I think part of the reason for this is that his audience hardly need convincing at this point. If you're a software-security-enthusiast you'll want to know how security is being broken regardless if it's ethical or not. If for no other reason than to know how to make stronger security in the future. If you are a Snowden-supporter you don't need convincing. If you're just a security-aware "regular" person, you'll also be interested in what is and isn't broken in the world of encryption. If you don't care about any of this, like most of my family, you won't be reading this article. If you're still anti-Snowden and/or pro-NSA after all the stuff that has come out then you're probably hardcore/immovable in your position and you believe deep down that foreign terrorists are plentiful and out to destroy USA - in which case, this author can do nothing to convince you otherwise.
There are plenty of people out there who aren't paranoid xenophobes that think what Snowden did was wrong. I think Marc Andreesen and Benedict Evans from a16z are probably two names most HN readers would recognize. Edward Lucas (a reporter for the Economist) does a pretty decent job making a case against Snowden in his book The Snowden Operation.
I'm not sure I want to engage into a debate about Snowden's actions at this stage of the game but that book's introduction seems to fit my description of a pro-NSA / anti-Snowden person. At least the opening paragraphs. It's up to the rest of HN to read that intro and see if they disagree with me and see something else in those words that I'm not seeing.
EDIT: I will acknowledge that the paragraph starting with "This book is not based on complacency about the status quo" does indicate, at least to me, that he's not 100% anti-Snowden though. Perhaps I could grossly, and only based on the intro, paraphrase his opinion as "Snowden just took things a bit too far". I can see that as a reasonable position to take. Even I don't think USA should just shutdown all secretive intelligence and pretend that there are zero terrorists.
If you're still anti-Snowden and/or pro-NSA after all the stuff that has come out then ... you believe deep down that foreign terrorists are plentiful and out to destroy USA.
I was taking issue with that bit. There are good reasons to think what Snowden did was wrong that don't involve paranoia about "plentiful" terrorists. You could, for example, draw a distinction between responsible whistleblowing and irresponsibly fleeing to a foreign country with literally thousands of classified documents.
You know that "responsible whistleblowing" has failed multiple times in the past right? Anybody who is upset with Snowden for not repeating the same pattern that failed to change anything, except the destruction of the whistleblower's life, is either unfamiliar with history or just completely illogical.
>>You could, for example, draw a distinction between responsible whistleblowing and irresponsibly fleeing to a foreign country with literally thousands of classified documents.
Ah, okay then. This position is completely reasonable.
I don't see why I can't be in shock and horror at what the NSA has been doing with my private data while at the same time not be in support of the way I found out about it.
