>So: whose ideas of "right" and "wrong" are we using?

That's the whole problem, isn't it? What the law is now can't be the standard for what the law should be or it can never change. But if we can't use legality to determine morality and morality in general is considered subjective then what are we supposed to do, flip a coin?

Obviously the answer is that we collectively have to define "wrong" based on logic, evidence and history. (The alternatives of basing it on "might makes right" or "loudest voice wins" may be popular but, at the risk of creating a cycle, that isn't right.)

So we need to have a debate. We need to see the evidence. How many terrorists have been foiled with this surveillance? How many could have been caught some other way and what would that have required? What are the risks to the public of allowing the government to accumulate this information? How does the one weigh against the other?

The problem is that we can't have the debate so long as they insist on keeping the evidence a secret. Which is why the secrecy itself is wrong -- it allows for unaccountable government power, which based on logic, evidence and history can lead to Very Bad Things That Must Never Happen Again.

I'm doubtful that there's actually a conversation happening about right and wrong. The media attention surrounding these issues, and the treatment of the official actors, is centering entirely on the question of "is it legal?". They should, instead, be focusing on the question of "is it constitutional?". It's a very different kind of question. When all that can be said is that laws X, Y, and Z form the basis for action C, we have a fundamental failure at interrogating lawmakers and enforcement officials to ensure they are not complicit in violating the Constitution.

How could this be disappointing? Nobody cares about what's legal, that is the point. We care about what is just.

You know that semantic distinction wasn't the point of his comment.