[geographomics]

Glenn makes a compelling case, and I agree with him on most points, but this false equivalency highlights the difference between the claimed and actual risks of automated surveillance, to most people:

> because I want to be able to just troll through what it is you're doing online, read what I want to read and publish whatever I find interesting

One thing the mass surveillance programme does not do is publish 'interesting' personal data that passes through it. The risk of one's private communications reaching a wider audience than, rarely, the occasional analyst (who is bound by secrecy laws) is close to zero.

The vast majority of people are more at risk of having their laptops stolen, accounts hacked/phished, online presence stalked, and so on by other members of the public rather than the security services. It's much more important to protect against that, than be disproportionately concerned about an invisible omnipresence to which their everyday activities are a trifling insignificance.