According to the NSA, their spying programs have only caught "dozens" of terrorist attacks in the last year. Even if these statistics are to be believed (which I doubt the credibility of in the first place), the odds wouldn't rise that much.

The whole premise is wrong, success of terrorism isn't measured by chances to be killed. AFAIK similar argument was made after Sandy Hook, smth like faulty car seats kill more kids on daily basis. Plain demagogy.

But truth be told, terrorist threat is low in the States. Always has been low and likely to stay that way, while in the rest of the world it's ramping up since the beginning of "war on terrorism", which makes it as successful as "war on drugs" I guess.

I might not reveal a big secret here, but here's an outline how typical specop operations against terrorists is done:

- Hey you, yes you, "brown-skinned, with funny accent, funny dressed, doesn't look like American, immigrant" come over here. Wanna earn some money? Here's package. Take it ooover here, please. - Take him guys, he's terrorist! He's got a bomb in the package!

So called sting operations.

Benjamin Franklin would have thought he did the right thing.
Illusion of security isn't worth giving up freedom.

You are, in my view, one of the scariest type of people , and it is people that make such arguments that actually make me very glad that we do not live in any semblance of a democracy.

I am a strong proponent of the non-aggression principle, and a strong opponent of preemptive strikes. These issues are at the core of not only the PRISM scandal but also at the heart of our foreign policy for the last few decades. By sanctioning the idea of preemptively striking a military target, even when no direct threat exists, one creates a dangerous precedent. If the military (president) can strike targets for  reasons other than self defense why cant the rest of the government? The FBI, CIA, NSA, and all the other three letter agencies looked at the examples set by our military leadership through the century and finally decided to catch up with some preemptive strikes of their own, by targeting every single human being they possibly could, regardless of nationality. The recent revelations about our military’s drone strikes, and their reckless nature (killing dozens of innocents because there “might” have bee a target in the area.) show that our country fully embraces the idea that safety and power are its number one goal. To combat many of the ills of our government we as a society need to realize that the ethical thing is not always the safest thing, and that being right is better than being in control.

The argument that no harm is done by the invasions of our privacy is simply terrifying to me, the Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of our country has made it quite clear that the many cannot simply give away the rights of the few, and that we have certain rights as humans not granted to us by government, but rights that come with existence. To simply throw all of that away because it may help stop the bad guys is not something I would hope many are willing to do.

Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither. 

Let me ask this... Why the fuck is NSA collecting data on US citizens. I understand if the FBI was but the NSA?

"The National Security Agency (NSA) is a cryptologic intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign signals intelligence, as well as protecting U.S. government communications and information systems,[5] which involves information security and cryptanalysis/cryptography."
"By law,[citation needed] NSA's intelligence gathering is limited to foreign communications, although there have been some incidents involving domestic collection, including the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency

The NSA doesn't have authority (unless it was passed in Patriot Act or other bs bill) to collect data on US citizen. So this huge data center is collecting data on US citizens along with foreing communications. I would expect this to be a FBI program not NSA. This would be like the CIA operating inside US boundaries which they aren't supposed to. All data collected on US citizens should be purged or given to FBI. They are obviously over stepping their boundaries. Collecting data on US citizens that aren't communicating with anyone foreign belongs to the FBI. I suppose they might state that all internet activity can be monitored by them because it has potential for being foreign communication (aka forum on website that has people from all over the world).

But what's the principal difference between surveillance and other infringements on our freedoms and rights the government impose on its citizens?

Let's take taxes. I don't know the figure for Americans but the average Swede is forced to give 50% of his income to the state.

You talk about rights that come with existence as a human being. As an individual, when did I give the right over my own labour away to the government? Was I personally ever allowed to make that decision and sign such a contract?

No. The government just decides that I must be part of a system that distributes wealth. It was decided by other people through elections. Not by me individually. No one asked me.

It's the same thing with surveillance and security. They're things decided by other people who are elected because they supposedly know what's best way to run a society.

What's the principal difference between surveillance and taxes? Why does one upset you immensly but not the other? Explain it to me.

Some would argue that taxes fall into the exact same category.

Here's the real difference, though, and since we're talking about inalienable rights, it's fittingly enough found in the Bill of Rights. One of these two issues (taxation) is expressly allowed in the Constitution. "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense." Taxes are explicity mentioned in the Constitution as part of Congress' power.

Now let's look at the issue at hand. The fourth amendment follows: 

"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."

Obviously, this is more than a little vague, but the key phrase that I think expressly goes against the idea of nation wide wiretapping is "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." I'm don't know about you, but I would have a hard time feeling secure about anything if I knew that someone was listening in on everything I said. I've yet to hear any sort of decent argument that would show how anyone could feel secure like that.

One could also argue that "searches" would also expand to telephones as well, but that's a drawn out debate that really doesn't accomplish much more at this point.

In summary: on one hand, we have a power that the government is explicity given. On the other, we have a power which the Bill of Rights strongly suggests is forbidden to the government. I think there's a clear distinction to be made here. If we had been born in a country that states "the government has the ability to watch you at all times," then perhaps an argument could be made. However, we have not, and in that regard, I believe the entire basis behind your argument falls to pieces.

Of course not. It's measured in how many stupid decisions you let a ragtag handful of criminals push you into making.

I agree that there is a clear difference constitionally, your interpretation is certainly correct there.

But I don't think the objections mainly stem from whether surveillance is constitutional or not, it's got to do with something else. Yes, there are certainly also exists many people who honestly value the constitution highly but I doubt they're the majority, and either way, let's forget them for a moment.

IMO the constitution, at least if the founding fathers would have had the ability to see 200 years into the future, could just as well have included a paragraph about the rights of the government to survey its citiziens in the name of the greater good, to prevent future threats and crime.

So let's assume that for a moment. The constitutional basis for taxation (and all the other infringements on personal freedoms) as well as government surveillance are constitionally equally strong. What would then be the principal difference? That's what I am interested in.

To me it seems liberals and socialists think taxation is an obvious and fundamental principle of the state, whereas surveillance and other measures to combat crime in general are questionable at best. I'd like to know why.