You seem to be arguing that everyone's personal security should be set at the level of the lowest possible endpoint - a race to the bottom for security. We should be arguing for improving the security on the other side, not lowering ourselves to that level.
the FBI has always been able to haul you away with a minimal amount of effort. All they have to do is suspect you of a crime. That's got nothing to do with the Patriot act or with the War on Terror
False, in two important ways. First, it used to be that suspicion was insufficient: the required standard was probable cause. Second, the required standard today, thanks to PATRIOT, is far lower. There's no requirement that there be any suspicion of a crime, or indeed that there be any crime at all. If they don't like you, you're done for.
Not really. Just because two entities have the same capability does not mean they are equally likely to exercise that capability.
I have two hands. Therefore, I am at least as likely as Michaelangelo to paint a masterpiece.
Don't forget, too, that our spying agencies have RIDICULOUS budgets. The NSA has tens of billions of dollars per year to spend on spying on people.
For the actual circumstances he's talking about (international phone calls and transfers) there's always at least one other country involved, so their secret service is at least as likely as the US's to be monitoring it.
The FBI, however, can have him hauled away with a minimal amount of effort.
Uhh, the FBI has always been able to haul you away with a minimal amount of effort. All they have to do is suspect you of a crime. That's got nothing to do with the Patriot act or with the War on Terror... that's what the FBI is designed to do.