I bring up issues of privacy on topics many think I would unabashedly support, such as police cameras. Who gets to see that footage, under what circumstances? How long should tapes be retained, if they aren't needed for an investigation?
I suppose I agree with your point, and decided to respond with how I take that approach.
If people are going to take the political route with this, I believe a better argument against pervasive (passive) surveillance is how it by design promotes weakening of security. By design the only defense in place is that a societal knowledge gap exists - at this moment only a small group would know how to exploit those weaknesses. But that knowledge gap will shrink as other nation states catch up and private industry starting training large amounts of people in 'cybersecurity' as is happening now.
I'd bet the average congressman will care more about threats against security than the average citizens privacy.
So people who are looking for policy change might benefit by refining their arguments in this context, instead of assuming people operating in secret will eventually start caring about privacy rights - which I find unlikely. Especially if the people in question are foreigners to the west.
The issue is and always has been where the line is drawn.
Instead of quoting Ben Franklin and talking about how dumb the American people are --- and the UK people and the French people and the Spanish people, who have comparable or worse tradeoffs in their laws --- maybe specific policy prescriptions would be a more productive thing to discuss.