There are plenty of ideas for addressing the surveillance problem but perhaps it is time to take a step back and look at the "big picture". In any conflict, no matter how big or small, there is considerable advantage in having advance knowledge of your opponent's intentions. In military conflicts the invention of telegraph, radio, aircraft and satellites has more or less solved the problem with blindly marching into an area and getting annihilated. Nobody ever suggested that these technologies should be banned in order to create a level playing field.

It is going to be the same patttern with all forms of electronic communication. The spectre of weapons of mass destruction (anything that can kill more than one person at a time) is the justification/motivation for government and law enforcement to monitor everything online. Whether it has merit is kind of besides the point. It is an advantage, perceived or otherwise, that is not going to be given up, under any circumstances.

Another part to this is whether conspiring online actually constitutes a crime. People can chat all day about terrorist plots but until someone actually goes out and starts building a bomb or procuring weapons has a crime really taken place? Only when a society can decide on the answer to this question will it be possible to address online surveillance.