Absolutely agree. People often fall into the false mindset that legal = morally or ethically right. Law is neither. Law is the result of politically motivated negotiations which managed to reach majority consensus. It could be argued that law is amoral.

> majority consensus.

A majority consensus of those who have been bribed enough to make a mockery of the idea.

They're also relying on legal opinions provided by interested and involved parties, so the claim of "legality" is dubious at best.

And thus, we are to blame. When was the last time anyone voted for a candidate based on their privacy stance? Can anyone name a presumptive presidential candidate who has spoken out against NSA abuses? I can name one but I'd get downvotes just for mentioning his name.

The simple tragedy is that most Americans don't have the time or inclination to understand the nuances of the issue -- at least not to a degree that they'd vote on that issue.

Most people seem to think "higher taxes bad; tax the rich; end welfare; increase welfare; no free school lunches; more free lunches.." People seem to be almost binary in their understanding of the issues of the day.

Let's hope that changes. The fact is that most people can at least understand the idea of online privacy, but when issues like illegal file sharing or similar things that aren't in the mainstream of your average person, then the passion for the issue is muted.

If, for example, there were high profile cases that made the national news about Grandma getting violated in a detrimental way by the NSA, then maybe the issue would gain traction. However, privacy violations typically happen to either a "criminal" or "someone else." So the issue is ignored.

It's everyone's issue, but the issue hasn't been well framed. It's the same logic used to get traffic camera installed: "If you ain't doing anything wrong, then it shouldn't matter."

Frustrating.

I did vote for Obama in 2008 because he promised no more warrantless wiretaps and in general seemed the least-bad 'realistic' (as in Schelling-point) choice for civil liberty. (I did not in 2012.) I agree that not nearly enough people give creeping totalitarianism its proper priority in voting; for the foreseeable future some other sort of action is needed.

I voted for Mark Udall for Colorado Senator last November, mostly for his work on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Does that count?

The NSA doesn't consider itself bound by law and hasn't since its inception. During the Church Committee hearings in the 70s, the NSA's general counsel admitted as much:

“No existing statutes control, limit, or define the signals intelligence activities of the NSA.”

-Roy Banner

The fourth amendment was written in the simplest possible terms because it was meant to be interpreted by us. The moment we stop interpreting this constitution right for ourselves, and let politicians and lawyers interpret it for us, is the moment we surrender our freedom. As part of the constitution, no other law or ruling can supersede it, no matter how much some bureaucrats and fear-mongers may say otherwise.

No matter what policy the NSA comes up with, it cannot trump our fourth amendment right, nor our right to interpret it.