Originally Posted by toysandme
This statement is incredibly naive. Do you actually trust your government? And how about tomorrow's government? Turn off your tv for a while and follow Appelbum and his whistleblower friends like Thomas Drake, former NSA official who's been completely ruined for telling the truth. They accused him of leaking classified information that had actually been on the net for years. When they found that they RETROACTIVELY classified the documents! By the time all was said and done Drake had lost an excellent income, a pension and now works at an Apple store. See the new documentary War on Whistleblowers for more and on Twitter follow Appelbum, Thomas Drake, Jesselyn Radack, Sibel Edmonds, Susan Lindauer, and Laura Poitras for a start.
There are tough choices to be made in the modern world. If you live in a Western democracy, and let's just consider US and UK for a moment, then you have been attacked by people sworn to destroy your culture (using airliners full of passengers as bombs in New York or putting bombs on buses full of passengers in London, as examples). If you think there are no more attackers are out there, if you're really sure there are no more attackers out there, then you may think there are no problems to solve.
If you think it's prudent not to assume that there are no more attackers and if you think they might be organised then they might use the Internet and mobile comms to organise their attacks. They might even use iPhones. So it might be useful if NSA or GCHQ could read their traffic and disrupt their plans (and save some lives).
Let's also choose to believe Snowden's leak, by the way, and not that it's these same people spreading disinformation.
So you have to choose what else to believe, then you have to choose whether the possible attackers or a possible present or future government presents he biggest threat, so you can choose who to trust. The one thing you don't have to question, at least for GCHQ (http://www.gchq.gov.uk) and the UK, is whether the security agencies spy on communications in search of threats to national security: they do, it's their job.
So then you have to choose whether they should have that capability, bearing in mind that it may save lives. So perhaps it's about choosing who to trust to give how much oversight?