How about this:

Would you consider it ok if the NSA asked someone who cleans your house to take pictures of everything in your house when you're not there, and send them to the NSA for storage? How about if the NSA promises not to open the package until some future date that you are under investigation for a crime and they can get a warrant from a secret court?

And then do you trust that they will never open that package before then?

And are you ok with the process being supervised by a secret court that you may not petition or file suit in unless you have evidence that you have been specifically targeted?

If this scenario would upset you then the current situation should also.

Of course if only those committing crimes need privacy then by all means open up your house for inspection.

Your example illustraTes the weakness of these articles. The internet is nothing like a house. Your example would make more sense if the NSA was secretly spying on your non internet connected computer, by secretly placing key loggers that transmitted over the air. The internet is a huge netWork, and you don't control the route of your message. I tHink it should more be considered like talking loudly in a public space. I also see that the problems of surveillance on the internet are related to the fact that it is a big network. The more players you have the less secure the whole thing becomes. But it's the huge number of nodes with reasonably low friction that define it. Let's just accept that if you want to keep something private don't put it on the internet, or on the discuss in private space only, this would solve the problem.

So you suppose that we don't (or shouldn't) put information on the internet that is the equivalent of someone photographing the inside of your house? That the internet, despite having password protected accounts is more akin to a 'public space' then a locked house? You assert that there should be zero expectation of privacy? Really, that is your position? I find that remarkable.

You also believe that we have reached a steady state, in which we wouldn't want to keep increasing amounts of or personal information on the internet? Or perhaps you mean we are putting more and more personal information on the internet but that in the future we should have less privacy then we enjoy now?

I do not agree. I consider password protected accounts by the very nature of keyed entry to cary an expectation of privacy. Weather they are effectively secure is not the issue, the fact that your back door lock is broken doesn't cause you to lose constitutional protection.

I still think my example is an apt,and predominately accurate (if simplified) "common man's guide" as to why they should care about the NSA's activities.

What about the McCarthy era in the 1960s?

Suppose we had a repeat of that in 2030, and the US wanted to purge everyone who believed in some "bad" ideology, summarized by a single word, like "communism", except which we can't hope to predict now.

Imagine further that this purge is being enforced by halfwits who don't actually understand the ideology in question, who get wrapped up in their own hysteria, and who are looking for any excuse to burn witches at the stake.

And finally, imagine that said halfwits have an indexed, fully searchable database of all the Facebook statuses you've ever posted, all the Google searches you've ever made, and all the e-mails you've ever sent.

Scared yet?

This would be an excellent service for the EFF or any of the other internet defense groups:

(Downloadable) one page sheets, with the most popular pro (NSA) opinions and very simple, fact based rebuttals. Just fighting fire with fire - isn't the NSA prepping news commentators with similar taking point memos?

That in the hands of an eager government there would be no Turing, no civil rights movement, nor speeches that go "I have a dream". The problem is that many in US heartland will consider these to be a good thing.

EDIT: could someone please upvote mkmkmmmmm. I think I managed to downvote his comment when trying to confirm it.

> in the hands of an eager government there would be no Turing

Alan Turing worked at Bletchley Park during World War II, which I think you could say was the NSA of its time.

I think the point was questioning if he would have had the opportunity if they had known he was gay from the start. Or would he have spent his life getting "treatment"?

How about this:

Did you ever run red lights? Did you ever smoke pot? Did you ever drink alcohol under age? Ever downloaded a copyrighted content off the net?

If yes, then why did you not walk to your nearest police station to confess right after you did so?

There are things that the state "frowns upon" yet we do anyway. We do so because we, as individuals, have decided we do not see no harm. Well, now it won't be up to us.

Nor does the murderer with his bloodstained knife, or the terrorist with his IED, see any point for walking himself down to the P.D. to confess.

If your idea for law enforcement is just to wait for the crooks to turn themselves in then it's not a great idea. If your idea for law enforcement involves the possibility of the state being able to investigate crimes then you have to be ready for the idea that such investigations could, theoretically, be used under due process against anyone, not just criminals.

This isn't to say that NSA surveillance is good, but I think the justification for why it's bad needs to be different, as all you've really said is that the state should disband the police, military, and all other parts of the national security apparatus that can be used without prior individual consent.

I am sorry that my comment was misunderstood.

The question was to come up with something that people could relate to. Mostly, I am hearing "nothing to hide". That is why I listed things where at least one is something you may have done.

You do them because they are nothing like a bloodstained knife or an IED. That is the point. They are all "bad", but on a whole different level. So you do these activities because you can get away with it and also you do not see no harm even though they are officially not OK.

Now imagine a surveillance state where even these lesser evils are known to the powers that be. Either you believe that the state won't act on that information or you really do have something to hide. If it is the latter then you should be at least aware of the fact that your privacy is being eroded and Summer of Surveillance is a prime example of that.

That was my line of thinking.

We are not the only ones being watched, politicians are being watched as well. This means the NSA can probably blackmail a large portion of the politicians.