This could have the effect of validating the NSA's activities in many Americans' eyes ("see, the NSA is unable to its job without invading our privacy") and we would see a whole new round of new laws capitalizing on Americans' fears of terrorists (which means their terrorism succeeded).
That doesn't imply that what Snowden did was wrong, though. We trade security for freedom in a thousand ways in American culture, and now we have a chance to debate that tradeoff for digital data.
This is something really important: it's not out-of-the-box obviously wrong (talk to people who aren't into civil liberties for this perspective) that our communications are monitored. But it is very important that, as US citizens, we have an understanding and a grasp of what is done and what could be done in our name, and that we regulate its activities based upon our choices, not that of shadowy figures telling us we don't have the capacity to understand. As a representative democracy, we have the right to be informed and to select representatives & leaders who take policies that we can agree (up to majority) on.
Further, we have almost no power as a representative "democracy": the public can't recall a representative at all, for example, and it is only done by an internal chamber discussion (it has happened very few times in the history of the US).
Thus, we're really not supposed to "vote away" basic, sane axioms in the first place. The point of the US was to have those rights held firmly in place, and for its citizenry to use their right to bear arms to protect themselves against a government that tried to take them away. It's indicative of the US's culture at this point that stating this position (which is easily backed up by many of the founding fathers' writing) brands you as a "libertarian wingnut" or "on the fringe." Am I advocating violent revolt now? No, because most would not actually know what to revolt against (and probably don't perceive the corporate/government power structure in place in the US).
Then again, any attempt to do the aforementioned has failed in this country. A great example are the Alien and Sedition acts, which were passed conveniently around the time of the French Revolution.
Point: Police power is inherently a use of force on the citizenry. The Army is the same, loooosely.
Point: Taxing, coining, patenting are all applications of force.
Point: The 5th amendment clearly lines out uses of force.
Point: The 5th amendment also includes a key phrase, "due process of law", indicating that the government is limited. The 3rd amedment supports this as well, requiring a limitation on quartering in time of war via law.
Point: Law & regulations, period, are the application of the government's use of force to ensure a smooth governing (See Hobbes for a work known in the late 1700s).
Conclusion: The US founders designed the government to have power (Unverified statement based on recollections - but split in such a way that each arm of government was naturally incented to limit the power of the other arms).
Nit: The US is a republic, not a democracy. It's regrettable that a district can't recall its representative wholly on its own. Perhaps that would restrain certain foolishness in the system...
Happy Holidays.
We're not a direct democracy, we're a representative democracy, but that is still a form of democracy.
For an example of a democracy that is not a republic, see the UK.
For an example of a republic that is not a democracy, see China.
I noticed it while getting a bunch of inappropriate 403 responses on basically any website, and my location kept showing up as "Ashburn, Virginia" automatically on weather sites.
The people and corporations who benefit most from the current systems also happen to have the power and wealth to significantly influence the public channels of debate.
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” ― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good
So how will the US plutocracy desire the debate of 'trading security for freedom' to go?
What proof do you have that the NSA has any effect on terrorism? you may not remember but USA failed to prevent 9/11 precisely because it relied to much on technology and not enough on intelligence on the ground. You dont catch terrorists in a cave by wiretapping them.
Assumption #2: That successful attacks in this scenario would lead (reasonable or otherwise) people to demand less surveillance.
Assumption #3: Terrorists want to the NSA programs ended, which would not make sense if #1 is true.
So I'm not sure why this would be a good strategy for anyone.
j/k I don't really wonder...
Then I thought, hey, it's just like bus transit: the rich folks don't ride buses, so that kind of utility gets no money. The NSA, uh, people, don't get robo-calls, so they don't see the problem.
Assumption #1: What is good for terrorists is bad for the NSA.
I think you will find that terrorist's successes have a very beneficial effect on the power and budget of the NSA. Look at what 9/11 did for them.