1. American citizens do not believe the people running the US government are or could become corrupt;

2. They haven't considered, or are not bothered by the fact that their habits will be shaped by the fact that someone is watching;

3. They believe the infrastructure will be used against anything that represent existential threats (terrorism), grave injustice (child pornography) or grave moral threat (a fringe political group);

4. Despite the fact that the definition of terrorism is quite fluid and could be used to target any stand against the government (as opposed to against the country itself), they don't want another 9/11 and see the apparatus as necessary to prevent it;

5. They believe the USG chooses sides in international conflicts based on moral considerations, and not realpolitik which often hurts them later (see: Al Qaeda)—or are comfortable with amoral positions as long as they benefit the country in the bottom line;

6. They do not believe those in power can change their minds in the future;

7. They don't believe in authorities framing innocent persons;

8. My favorite, one-track point of discussion here: Americans are slightly xenophobic. So they're fairly happy to know the US has a big machine to track and all those pesky foreigners and keep their countries nice and obedient.

And it's not like the beliefs are unfounded. The US government has generally been good for its citizens. The only truly harmful actions of the USG have been targeted at other countries. You don't feel threatened until a drone kills your teenage son. But while your government does that thousands of miles away from you, it's easy to be forgiving of all that.

Americans are not used to systemic corruption and tyranny, so they don't have the framework to consider their state becoming authoritarian or totalitarian.

> "Americans are not used to systemic corruption and tyranny, so they don't have the framework to consider their state becoming authoritarian or totalitarian."

I agree, and I'll add that since the US is still a relatively young country whose present form of government has been in existence since shortly after its inception, Americans have trouble mentally disassociating their opinion of America--its culture, its people, its common beliefs--with their opinion of American government. In countries where citizens have lived to see multiple governments come and go, this is much easier to do. Americans, however, seem to have a hard time loving their country but hating their government, even when their government actively works to undermine and destroy some of the best qualities of their country.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congr...

My hypothesis is that people are (mostly) not subjected to the election time advertising campaigns of other (nearly identical) politicians. Their politician is from a small town just like theirs and has a cute dog and a nice family! That other senator from the next state over? Who knows, he's almost certainly a scumbag.

Advertising works; film at eleven...

Whatever the cause, it's a fascinating dissonance.

Despite the rhetoric of "both parties are the same" people really only care about a few issues, which the parties differ on: taxes, welfare, religion, education, social issues, etc. I just got hassled on the street today by a college-aged male to support planned parenthood. Who do you think he votes for? Why? What does he think of Congress?

Combine that with the general US notion (a notion existent since the Munroe Doctrone in the early 19th century) of isolationism, and you've got an explanation for why we're generally okay with this.

Classic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog situation. What is now somehow acceptable, would have been outrageous a dozen years ago. In a few months' time people will have accepted that the NSA is spying on US citizens without a warrant.

This is why it is inevitable that the US will become a totalitarian surveillance state - if the political establishment chooses to go down that road.

Going back further, watch this movie on Prohibition: http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition.

You think 4th amendment rights are being violated now, back then Prohibition Bureau agents were just sweeping houses looking for illegal alcohol. Seriously, watch the video. It should be eye-opening for anybody who thinks that the trajectory of this country has been towards less freedom and more corruption.

I don't see a boiling frog situation, I see the opposite: people getting more used to stronger protections against government and reacting more strongly to lesser outrages. That doesn't mean the outrages are less valid, but rather it means that the defeatism inherent in the "boiling frog" analogy is unwarranted.

It might have stirred some opposition in August of 2001, but by September of 2001 people were pretty united in the desire to punish the perpetrators of 9/11 by any available means.

The reality is that tens of millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet, working multiple jobs, juggling credit cards, mortgage payments, car payments and trying to get by with little to no healthcare.

These people are too swamped by the day to day to have the time or energy to look around at the bigger picture. Life is too hard already.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/07/secret_informa...

Of course, there's also the "I've done nothing wrong, I have nothing to hide,"-type folks, and people who are generally authoritarian too.

I didn't read the paywalled paper, they may already cover this hypothesis.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll see mass popular opposition until a clear misuse of these spy powers occurs. Something similar to Watergate where a high-ranking government official uses their surveillance powers to further a personal political agenda. Unfortunately by the time it gets that bad it may be too late for reform. The next generation of mass surveillance tools will undoubtably be far more intrusive and effective. Which is why we need to agitate now against these surveillance programs.

I would. Or, rather, considering only Americans who are upset about this sort of thing, they don't care enough to spend time on this, and expose themselves to risk.

For a given action (say, protesting), you have to measure the cost and the benefit.

We are incredibly rich compared to the people who protested in large numbers in the past, in the sense that we have more to lose, so the cost is higher than it has been in the past.

I believe that there's also an element of "what could I do?", in that there's no path to making a difference. Maybe I speak only for myself, but it's not at all clear what action I could take that would have a significant effect on political things I care about: the times when something went the way I would prefer, I clearly had nothing to do with it, and the times when I acted, nothing came of it (except mild or moderate cost to me personally), so I need to see or create a realistic plan before I work at it again. So, considering the likelihood of making a difference combined with the worth of the difference, the benefit side is similarly lacking.

A kind of exhaustion results from the constant drumbeat of scandals and horror stories and outrage porn, and I believe modern media consumers and internet readers are numb. There are so many terrible things happening at every level that it's just not clear where to begin, and adding the NSA revelations to it doesn't help simplify. Were so many terrible things happening in the 1950s? I think they were, but since the average citizen didn't hear about the vast majority of them, when they did hear, there was a clear call to action about it, and some answered that call. At this point, any action I take has to include a justification about why I didn't act yesterday -- what makes this time different; why is this problem worth spending money and time and potentially risking my freedom or health?

I, of course, think that's dangerous and short-sighted thinking and there are higher principles at stake here (and for the future), but I get a strong inkling a lot of folks shrug and feel this way. My wife, for instance.