That debate will always be at the forefront of security. In the 19th century, when the first professional police departments were established, people were outraged and convinced that the police were there to take away their liberty.

It doesn't excuse all action to improve security, but we do have to occasionally align our security with modern standards. What would happen if we left all cybersecurity (including banks, power systems, etc) to the private sector?

And then, where do we draw the line? Is it okay for the FBI to target people who visit a child pornography site? Most would say yes... People who download The Anarchist's Cookbook? Probably another yes. But what about collecting info on the people who supported that whole ordeal with Clive Bundy? Or people who belong to a non-state sponsored militia? That's where the line starts to gray for many. The point being, it's never cut and dry.

should you be on a list just for mentioning the anarchist cookbook? Personally I think being targeted for being curious what the anarchist cookbook is is a bit much - I think every other high schooler in my generation downloaded the thing for kicks - most of it is utter bullshit anyway. But yeah - clearly most people have their own definition of when it's justifiable to spy on people vs what's not so it does create difficulties.

Yeah it's a tough question, and due to the complex nature of the technical and political systems involved, it's probably impossible to simplify/distill the situation down so that ordinary people can have any sort of informed opinion. Right now, people say "give us privacy" because it's a smart thing to say - but they don't understand what they're fighting for so I fear they'll be quick to give up at the first sign of resistance.

There might not be a single person in the world who understands all the moving parts well enough to say what's right.