I don't accept the level of government's (or business's) collection of data on people and invading the privacy of individuals.
Funny, for someone who supposedly doesn't accept high levels of data collection, you seem to mock anyone else who actually cares.
I'm not mocking 'anyone who actually cares', only you. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
You said "your own cynicism and willingness to accept a terrible situation as just "business as usual". And my response is I don't accept these data collection policies. Business as usual or otherwise. I also don't accept that this is the only way to deal with unethical activities. The general public cares more about Kanye and Kim than it does this. Most of them don't even know what CALEA is. Or FISA. Or what an NSL is. And then you make the assumption that the only way government surveillance can be reformed is through things like the Manning/Snowden activities. The whole premise of my original post is that the NSA knows Snowden has nothing that will last more than a news cycle and won't be particularly damaging. But they're willing to wring their hands and ask Congress for more money to secure and compartmentalize their data.
They provided information to the public without any specific intent to collaborate with enemies.
Neither actually provided information to the 'public'. Snowden was the closest with the article in the Guardian. Then he proceeded to contact the Chinese government followed by the Russian government. While those governments aren't 'enemies', they aren't exactly friendly either. How will you feel if the classified information that he gave China encourages them to further escalate tensions in the East China Sea? You understand how treaties set the stage for WWI and WWII. What happens if China shoots down a Japanese plane in this new Defense Zone? Or maybe they send fighters to redirect our B52s to one of their bases. Manning gave information to Wikileaks, an organization whose leader had expressed a public agenda to damage the US government. Both Wikileaks and Snowden used 'unreleased' information to attempt to coerce a specific behavior. Not exactly 'releasing to the public'.