I suppose you could move to a different country and never return to the USA. I don't know if that qualifies as a "solution" though.
(Amusing side anecdote: There was a group of mexican school kids passing through security at the same time. Some were also selected for random screening. The random screening lady was from Spain, but she told them the policy (law?) dictated she only speak to them in English even though everybody involved in the transaction spoke Spanish better than English.)
An example: Like many other countries we have logging of telecommunications. The difference from the US is that it has been a transparent process. A bill was introduced into parlaiment, it was discussed both in the media and on the floor of parlaiment, then voted on and made into law. I know exactly what is logged, because the process is open. So does the media, and some of the major Danish tech-sites have criticised the way the logging works (it's basically useless for the police).
Personally I don't like the law, but it was an open process; I know exactly who voted yes and no, I know exactly what is being logged, I know from the media debates how the police uses this, etc.
Democracy at work.
Wouldn't one of the reason it's "useless for the police" be because anyone who has been paying attention has the exact blueprint needed to evade this logging?
* Publish the standards and practices of the government. Lawbreakers know what to avoid, ala Denmark.
* Keep the S&P secret. The law-abiding populace has no say in the rule of law, ala the US.
I'd love if there was some middle ground here, but I think there is none. In direct response to your question, it could be argued that the US's actions (specifically, the interception and storage of telecommuniques by government entities) have been completely in accordance with the law, though I won't be the one to make the argument.
E.g. the FBI is given authority to wiretap with a warrant, telecom providers are ordered to make it possible to comply with such warrants, but it's left up to the FBI and telecom providers to figure out the actual operational details.
This is, after all, why people were protesting against PATRIOT ACT, FISA Amendments Act, etc., was because they were worded to permit activities much like (if not exactly like) were revealed by Snowden.
For the non-foreign surveillance things (like DEA's "SOD") I'm not so sure they're fully legal, but if they are illegal they'd still be just as illegal under a general law as they would be under detailed S&P.
The normal judicial discovery process itself can encompass far more needless data than even '3 hops' and few people would bat an eye, because the assumption is that the investigators are sifting through the data to find the evidence instead of just capturing everything to use for nefarious deeds afterward.
Given the stated purpose of that search it even makes sense: To find connections between terrorists in cells that are directly connected you would need 1 hop, for cells directly connected through only 1 intermediary you would need 2 hops, etc.
So if you're willing to limit yourself to discovering connections between cells that directly share a connection to a given other cell then 2 hops would be fine. But somehow I don't think that's the most prudent means of uncovering connections between terrorist groups and their ongoing recruits.
FISA is the law. The PATRIOT Act is the law.
The law is corrupt.