I have a problem with your approach preferring 'relatively low' numbers of people subjected to blanket surveillance, as opposed to the necessary number.
The reference to numbers was simply to point out the fallacy in what Snowden wants people to believe - that he could spy on anyone at anytime without control. He even suggested that he could spy on the President.
It seems to me that, given the possible numbers if this program was out of control, 10,000 out of 1.1 billion is sticking to the necessary number.
It's not at all clear to me that proper oversight can and will be possible when you cannot even talk about the topic, as is so clearly the case here.
According to this morning's news, there are various government agencies, including the judiciary, who have oversight.
....the often heard sentiment that 'you've got nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide' doesn't reassure me at all, to the contrary.
General Michael Hayden was interviewed this morning by Fareed Zacharia and explained what they look at and how. He says that they're not listening in on everyone's phone calls or the reading the content of their emails. He referred to it as seeing the outside of the envelope (name, address et cetera) but not seeing the letter inside.
They have a large database of phone numbers (hardly a big deal IMHO - since they're available in lots of places, including where we sprinkle them around ourselves). He gave the example of capturing a terrorist in Yemen and seizing their cellphone. They then enter that number into the database to see who that phone has been contacting, and then who those phones have contacted.
I assume, at that point, greater scrutiny is employed. And, I also assume that these are likely people who do have something to hide.
So far as Snowden is concerned, I don't see him as any kind of hero the way some are trying to portray him. He is called a "whistle-blower" when, in fact, he is not. There are procedures in place for whistle-blowing that allow it do be done in a safe way where the whistle-blower is protected by law.
Instead, he flees to a foreign country with documents ( that I'm sure the Chinese are happy to have) and his only rationale is that, in his opinion, something wrong is being done and he must expose it.
Of course, his exposition reduces the safety of his fellow Americans. He seems to have an extraordinarily high opinion of his opinion.
