then you should support the abilities of one of the strongest powers in the world at actually, materially, and in reality (not in your little internet fantasy) of actually protecting and projecting those ideals.
The US constitution is the document that authorizes our form of government. Even a cursory reading of it reveals that it spends a great deal of time restricting government action. Given that this is the case, it must (and of course does) follow that there was a perceived risk deemed significant enough to guide the construction of the document, that risk being the government acting in such a way as to compromise the citizens.
Further, again without much effort, we can see that the restrictions implemented at times actively disadvantage the government. The 4th amendment is a poster child for this; it would, of course, be much more convenient for law enforcement if searching any venue they wanted, any time they wanted, for anything they might happen to find, was ok. But all three are disallowed: Warrants are required, specifying where to search, what to search for, and the prior existence of a reason (probable cause indicative of wrongdoing) for the search.
This is the source of those "self-styled internet tech-libertarians" ideas that the government should not have everything easy, no matter what justifications they might bring to the table today. The document that served (and serves) as the very foundation of this country does not agree with your "you should support" assertion, and it does agree with those "self-styled internet tech-libertarians."
Indirectly related to all this is the pervasiveness of blatent agitprop put forth by the government regarding the risks of terrorism within our borders (slim... getting hit by lightning is much more likely) and the risks operations like ISIS pose to the US (almost none... certainly nothing that justifies paying them any attention at all, much less getting unconstitutionally invasive within our borders.)
Finally, as US law extends exactly zero distance within the borders of, and the communications mechanisms of, other countries, what the NSA and other TLAs do in those venues is pretty much irrelevant, legally speaking, except when it touches upon a US citizen or breaks a treaty to which we are signatory. There's no need to ask for powers out there; there's no significant limit on such activity that we didn't sign up to on our own. There's no premise that provides for search or seizure of anything within the US without a warrant pendant upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
It's worth examining the role of the oath there as well. At the time, a person's word was the foundation of their reputation. An oath was something given when even the most awful circumstances would not disrupt the giver's honor. Should someone's oath be found wanting, their reputation was destroyed, and likely, permanently. This is the source of requiring an oath before a warrant could be issued: if the assertion of criminality was found to be incorrect, the oath-giver, a person directly responsible in the chain of warrant issuance, was harmed deeply by the utter destruction of anyone's ability to trust them -- and you could be sure the falsely accused would see that it is so.
So we can see that the government's ability to search and seize was not only restricted by procedure, but also by the willingness of a citizen to destroy themselves should the undertaking prove fruitless. The authors of the constitution really didn't want the government searching and seizing "just because it wanted to." You'll also note there are absolutely no exceptions made for constructions like "national security", "public safety", "the children" or "moral decency." The whole and entire premise that any part or parcel of search and seizure of anything within our borders should be at the government's ultimate discretion is utter claptrap made up by, and for the benefit of, the power structure.
Those are the ideals you should be protecting and projecting.
TL;DR: If the constitution says no, the answer is no until or unless the procedures specified in article five are used to change what the constitution says. Neither congress, nor SCOTUS, nor the executive, nor any TLA can implement a valid law, rule, or other form of coercion, direct or indirect, that does so. These entities can -- and do -- misuse their power to illegally impose their unauthorized will upon the citizenry -- but those same "self-styled internet tech-libertarians" will be right there to point it out to the uninformed (the majority, sadly) and the sycophants each and every time the knowledge becomes public.
