My two biggest sticking points against US bulk surveillance

#1) lack of visibility into how/which authorities peruse & take action on bulk data [some examples: the difficulty of having a meaningful discussion with government about the particulars of massive classified programs, much less finding legal standing to challenge them in court; the NSA’s recently eased restrictions allowing local law enforcement to search its databases; the entire rubberstamp FISA court system].

#2) lack of accountability in misusing bulk data (consequence of #1), leading to false-positive convictions without recourse, odds stacked against defendants (with methods like parallel construction), and zero respect for peoples’ privacy (ex.: NSA’s problem with nude pics that Snowden revealed).

[#3 the Constitution, which forbids unlawful search and seizure — but bulk surveillance advocates would say you forfeit that protection via the 3rd-party doctrine when you sign up for companies’ services (like, when you sign on the dotted line with your telco provider, ISP, etc … (Here’s another benefit of end-to-end encryption.))]

Politicians should fix those first two points (with legislation) before even suggesting it’s necessary to hoover up every last note on our lives with a straight face. When people say mass surveillance imminently necessary, mention these points and contend that no, it’s not. They should be fixed, frankly for amount of bulk surveillance that’s already occurring much less expanded programs.