>Going to go ahead and be the voice of reason and state that:
You aren't the voice of reason. You're the guy with his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed. You are the worst possible neighbor to have in a democratic society. Until you are directly and personally affected, you will continue to argue that those who oppose surveillance are all "unreasonable" to expect the gov't to follow the law, or for even "believing" that the gov't does not, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing.
>1. The NSA does not keep a "file" on you.
The NSA keeps _all_ of the source data. A file can be built at any instant by a simple query. The distinction of not having a "file" at some particular moment is without meaning. One might even argue that the architecture of the systems are designed to allow this "lie" to be told. At the very least, officials have demonstrated their willingness to exploit this semantic loophole, which by the strict rules of logic, evaluates as "true" but which all honest people consider "lying through your teeth".
> Domestic matters are the FBI's territory. The NSA is tasked with strictly foreign surveillance.
The NSA passes evidence of non-terrorism, non-national-security, ie domestic crimes to domestic law enforcement on its own accord, as has been reported widely in the press. Additionally, US intelligence services have in the past been caught passing inside information to commercial interests, also well beyond the scope of "strictly foreign surveillance".
>If information is contained in databases that correspond to your communiques, it is not catalogued as "Kevin Collier", because that would be a direct FISA violation and trigger administrative removal of the data along with reporting about how the violation occurred.
You have no proof of that. Even given the little that is actually revealed about the NSA so far, it is not reasonable to claim that the NSA has followed the rules in this particular scenario, given the many examples of rule-breaking, and the NSA's demonstrated contempt of FISC rulings.
>2. I can almost say with complete confidence that our national security resources aren't being used to target white suburban bloggers.
I can say with complete confidence that you are wrong again. Laura Poitras, Jacob Applebaum, many others have been receiving extralegal searches, seizures of their electronic devices at the border for years. Just a few weeks ago, a family received a visit by virtue of their internet searches. Even if you were correct, it is an extreme threshold for opposition to gov't lawbreaking. You think that no person should make a fuss, until the speech of "white suburban bloggers" is targeted?
>3. By flooding NSA public relations with these useless requests, you're blocking potentially real requests from being processed. If you really cared about getting actual information about programs, you would back EFF, etc. efforts.
Even if their tactic is ineffective or even counter-productive, I prefer it to your denialist condescention.