Even better, if you had pulled up an internet article over the NSA spying right before calling your senator, the NSA could even corroborate the two sources together to know that you were talking to your senator about the NSA program (even if all they collect is 'just metadata').

I can't even fathom how anyone can claim this can be allowed in a democracy.

Well, you do get to choose between two candidates. Both of whom admittedly support the implementation of a surveillance state.

I can abnsolutely understand that realisation, and I suppose I am not sure of my thinking regarding the whole paradigm of a powerful select being immune to the tentacles of the surveillance state - I just think it is all very, very bad. I am not clever enough or articulate enough to explain these things properly.

Perhaps one way all of us can make the point here is that when we want to speak to our elected representatives, we insist on doing so face to face, explaining that we don't want a digital 3 way with the NSA.

And you'll leave your phone home too, right?

...and not drive there.

Where would you draw the line on spying? Any american citizen is potentially a criminal threatening the republic.

The people who wrote the Constitution drew the line at "specific suspicion."

Amendment IV http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.

That's where I would draw the line.

> Where would you draw the line on spying?

At none.