I think it is reasonable to say that he is slightly more informed to speak on these issues than a secretary.
It's really not surprising he hasn't heard of parallel reconstruction, considering:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6911200
Also, there's no need to be so hostile. It's simply his point of view, and by the very nature of the restricted work environment at intelligence agencies, it's not reasonable to expect him to have a complete picture.
To quote the very post of his that you're replying to:
"You're right, abuses probably have happened more often than those caught."
He's hardly saying nothing bad ever happened, or that all abuses are known for that matter.
How is that different from "he lacks credibility" ?
His character is secondary to his veracity.
> His claims can have limited scope and still be credible.
His claims were about the NSA. That is the scope over which we all agree he is not a credible source on.
He never claimed to have more than anecdotal evidence regarding the NSA. He never asked to be taken more seriously than, as you so derisively put it, a well-placed secretary (actually, I suspect a secretary would have a much better high-level picture of what was going on, but I don't think you intended an actual comparison).
I'd like to thank him for adding his perspective to the discussion. Even though I'll be keeping my opinion, it is good to know that in some (most?) parts of the NSA, the culture of taking jurisdiction seriously still pervades. It could be a lot worse, and absent this admittedly anecdotal evidence it's difficult to know what to believe.