I mean ultimately, isn't the problem the NSA is snooping on people who aren't aware of it ? Why would someone try to hide itself from the NSA ? Is it just because it's a political principle or to just annoy the NSA and discourage them ? I mean wouldn't this help the bad guys more ?
The power of the government getting into your personal life to blackmail you into submission (for a multitude of purposes) is something everyone needs to worry about.
The fact that they are the defacto spy agency means they can simply lie about you, and claim their spy powers tell them so, and therefore you are guilty. (Just make sure to claim national security privileges on the information gathered so they cant argue against their accuser.)
I might be wrong, but I feel like I must have misunderstood entirely the thrust of your comment due to how oppositely I interpret this question.
No it actually doesn't and shouldn't. It would create a tyranny of the majority.
It took less than 200 years for it to devolve into a full-blown plutocracy.
That's highly impratical. NSA's budget isn't infinite and they have many other operations that would also require funding.
* they collect bulk data, then develop the tools to sort them out
If the government was so repressive, people would know about it. It's america, not Russia. There are many things in place which makes it difficult for the government to literally take advantage of all this data.
Wow. Seriously, why would you think they had that right?
If the link in their HN profile is to be believed, the person you are replying to is almost certainly a US citizen. The NSA is not authorized for domestic surveillance, as General Alexander admitted when he perjured himself in front of Congress[1]. It's in their charter, it's in the 4th Amendment and a couple hundred years of legal precedent. We even addressed these limitations in the Church Committee.
So I really don't understand why you would believe they had the right to spy on domestic targets. Besides, the game played by the FVEY members is letting GCHQ do the spying on US targets, not the NSA.
Anybody who is afraid of parallel construction.
And if you're not, you should be.
I've read the wikipedia article, and I don't see how I should be afraid of it. Or maybe I don't understand it properly. Anyway, this article would be targeting people who are the target of the NSA, like political dissidents or journalists.
That in itself should worry you.
* Hackers/crackers/phishers and organized crime. The NSA data troves _must_ be a juicy target. If any malicious intruder gets access to the data (I know, highly unlikely), what could they use it for? Surveillance, tracking, blackmail, extortion, political affiliations, personal beliefs, etc. What if they don't target you, but rather political leaders in the US. That would make the holders of that information _way_ more powerful than any political campaign donor.
* Have a US security clearance? You are subject to very high standards of conduct. Anything that could impair your judgement or lead to possible blackmail of you or your family is potentially grounds for taking away your security clearance (which likely means you can no longer do your job). Alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, sexual relationships, history of crime, immoral behaviors, etc. Gen David Patreus (Director of the CIA, IIRC) was in an extra-marital affair and tried to his this fact from "the company" and from politicians. In this scenario, he is a "bad guy".
* You are assuming the NSA only uses records for official purposes. We have already heard that some NSA employees have been reprimanded for snooping on their spouses and neighbors using work tools.
* It's not as if the NSA has a perfect record. Snowden wasn't even close to being the first whistleblower and it looks like there may be another post-Snowden disclosure. The NSA doesn't have control of its own people (or contractors) so I assume it doesn't have perfect security procedures either. That means it is open to threats against its data and procedures from both inside and out.
* The NSA is suspected to have tipped off the DEA/DHS and FBI for cases that don't involve terrorism or national security. NSA techniques are suspected to have been adopted by much of DHS. This means the threshold to be considered a "bad guy" is now a lot lower than the NSA used to be tasked with watching. Apply the slippery slope argument. What if the NSA quietly helps out with civil cases (such as MegaUpload) and not just criminal? What if it goes even further?
* The NSA isn't the only organization trying to gain access to sensitive internet communications. If anyone else finds out how to take advantage of some of the same tricks the NSA uses, they could potentially have access to the same data and communications. Think nation-states, organized crime, disorganized criminals, even marketing/tracking companies with questionable ethics.
* If SSL / TLS is no longer beyond cracking in near-real-time, MITM is now possible. This could set back peoples' faith in the security underpinnings of the web even more than it has been eroded in recent years. Even worse if people don't find out about it.
If the government had cameras inside your house set to record 24x7 would you act any differently than you do today? Are you breaking any laws inside your home, if not, what are you trying to protect yourself from by refusing access?
Have you ever avoided visiting a website, searching for information on certain subjects, or held back writing something online that you felt strongly about because you were afraid of possible repercussions in the future?
If yes, then that is an example of the government eroding our rights which are protected by the first and fourth amendments. The right to privacy online is just as important as the privacy you enjoy (take for granted?) within your own home.