They probably believe that they will not be targeted by it, that if an algorithm scans over their data that it's no big deal, and that it may lead to some criminals being caught. They can live their entire lives from start to finish, and whether their own communications were ever intercepted will likely have had zero impact on their life.
I'm not trying to be dismissive of people who are concerned, just wanting to point out that there are also valid reasons to take the other view.
But that's exactly it: if you leave a gaping hole for the feds to get through I (in the sense of a hypothetical attacker) can go through it too, especially with how easily most federal secrets leak out and the fact that rekeying is essentially impossible for this use.
Your second point is true only if the access mechanism is reliant on weak security. It doesn't have to be.
That would not be rational. They have no capacity (nor does anyone else) to predict which of their behaviors will be cause for targetting at some point in the future. Additionally, once they are profiled for their 'normal usage pattern', any life changes which cause statistically significant alteration of that pattern are likely to result in scrutiny.
For instance, you are currently involved in a conversation on a website called "Hacker News" with people whose backgrounds and motivations you do not know. The likelihood you're NOT connected to someone who is a criminal is probably very, very low. Everyone should expect to be targetted. If not today, then at any point for the rest of your life because all of these stores are maintained forever.
I probably should have mentioned in my original comment that looking at it this way is purely self-interested. In reality, perhaps there are non-average attributes (eg. particular religions) which might see clusters of innocent people scrutinized. People outside those clusters may or may not take issue with that. It depends on their values. I don't mean to suggest that one opinion or the other on this is "correct", just that there might be rational (albeit self-interested) views on both sides of the argument.
I think we're just using the word 'scrutiny' differently. I count extensive computational analysis of behavior patterns to be scrutiny. My worries are not that a human being will listen to my calls, read my emails, etc. My worries are that a piece of software will do it. The piece of software knows exactly and precisely whether I deviate from the norm and it would have no tolerance whatever for such deviation. Yes, we could pretty much completely guarantee maintenance of the status quo with automated analysis and really very civilized and quiet means of disrupting communication. It would prevent revolutions, riots, terrorism, and all sorts of negative things. But it would also doom everyone to a quiet tyranny and completely prevent any improvements as well as detriments.
People in America who grew up on Nintendo and Xbox don't have a clue how stupidly brutal the world can be. This is why these "highly educated people" are "actually for it".
I will grant you that these activities should be under the oversight of the US government, State governments, who represent the People of the United States. The FBI is such a federal government agency.
Just a question, why would the terrorists be targeting children in particular? Why not a mix of infants, children, adults, and elderly people? Your scum-sucking interest in over-reaching government intrusiveness is leading you to come up with demented and perverse scenarios focused on children.
Dude clean up your mind.
I think people have a very good handle on how brutal the world can be. In fact, they believe it to be quite a bit more brtual than it actually is. There have been ONE really major terrorist attack in the US in the past century. And having access to every single one of their conversations did not do anything to prevent it. Having separate entrances for pilots and passengers on planes would have prevented it completely, though.
Clearly, it's reasonable for people not to expect to have to pay airlines for travel to Europe.