[hitekker]

> "Under what circumstances would the government pay a federal agent to watch me have sex for the next 10 years?"

When the federal agent is abusing her or his authority, of course. This point can then serve to to bring up deeper research which illustrate that this "ridiculous" hypothetical is a stone's throw away from what has already happened, and what may be happening now. Such as:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog-...

Or,

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/23/bloomberg...

The first step of persuasion is describing how the problem for the many is a problem for the individual, i.e. the other party. People are less inclined to read more into things ( or listen to a longer explanation) if they don't see an immediate personal stake. "God, this guy keeps on talking. The NSA is listening in to ten million people's phone calls? Their email too? Well, that's their problem! I haven't done anything wrong!"

> "I have nothing to hide" it's generally short for...

The statement I intended to castigate was "I don't have anything to hide, so I don't care if they spy on me". I did not clearly elucidate that in my original response and instead shortened the statement to "I have nothing to hide", which was a mistake.

"I have nothing to hide" by itself is indeed shorthand that can be said in some contexts without reflecting badly on its speaker. But in discussions about government abuses/ovverreach in which there is ample evidence that law enforcement officials have been untrustworthy, the "so I don't care if they spy on me" indicates some self-delusion.

[csandreasen]

There's a huge difference between those links and showing systemic abuse. When I actually go and read the stories behind your links, what you state is that 13 people in 10 years abusing their position at the NSA to spy on their significant others (and subsequently being fired, resigning or being relieved of their positions[1]) is a stone's throw away from having a federal agent being assigned to watch me personally have intercourse. This says to me that the average American should be about as worried about being spied on by the NSA as they are worried about being struck by lightning on a clear day. The odds might go up slightly if they had a jealous ex working at the NSA.

I have better odds of getting shot by a government agent than being spied on, and I generally manage to get through my day without worrying that I'll die at the hands of the US government. I think that's probably the biggest reason that so few people outside of HN/Reddit/etc. care about Snowden leaks. I can find plenty of people that are upset about police brutality, and there's lots of discussion about implementing body cameras, discrimination in law enforcement, etc. because I can find new, documented evidence of someone getting shot by a cop every other week. It's still not at the level where I worry that I'm going to get shot by a cop. Snowden showed potential for abuse, not actual abuse. That's why "I have nothing to hide" persists.

[1] The source document for the LOVEINT stories (not linked from either of those articles) is https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/press_room/2013/grassley_let...