Just because more people cite it does not necessarily mean that its correct.

smidgen, possibly, conflation of legality and morality

All of these are perfectly defensible - the info in question was a 'smidgen' compared to the total amount of data taken, there is no universal agreement about the constitutionality of the program. There's no mention of morality in the bit you quoted. The author is a lawyer.

they may be defensible, but if you agree with them as stated, then you weren't ever on the fence about Snowden.

in other words, the article preaches to a choir and articulates a position for them. it doesn't aim to persuade an opposition.