Neither of those things are objectively bad, and there is no magical opinion fairy who decides such things. Pretty much everyone would agree with them, but popularity does not make those things objective facts.

You do realize this is about surveillance, right? Even if you have nothing to do with Facebook, your communications are still being monitored.

Oh, that's nice.

And thanks to modern technology and governments that are willing to use said technology to infringe upon people's rights, the number of such opportunities is decreasing.

Well, that's kind of the problem, isn't it? This is the information age, and I don't exactly expect people to abandon modern communications just so they can ensure that their corrupt governments aren't spying on those sorts of communications.

You honestly don't see the difference between the government installing surveillance equipment everywhere in public places that gives them the ability to 'be' in many places at once and collect all the data with a high degree of certainty and some random person who may or may not have a camera recording you and then perhaps uploading the footage to Youtube? Even if someone happens to record you, there is little reason they'd bother uploading the video unless something interesting happened. The government, however, collects the data to get a list of targets they can harass.

The differences are pretty clear to me, and I don't see why you would fail to see them.

Funny indeed. If he'd played by the rules, the American people, in all likelihood, would still be ignorant of what their government is doing. When the government is violating the constitution and people's rights, I think the people need to be the first to know. Forget idiotic rules.

No, it isn't. Even in public places, you have some degree of privacy.

And mass surveillance is far, far different from some random person seeing you in a public place. I don't think they should even be compared. Privacy in regards to someone seeing you in a public place and privacy in regards to mass surveillance are two different things.

I do not consider those procedures to be proper, and it's due to the fact that they result in the American people remaining ignorant of the crimes their government is committing.

Perhaps you don't, but no matter which side people are on, most of them seem to.

That has more to do with their lack of principles (Whatever happened to "the land of the free and the home of the brave"? It never existed.) than what Snowden has done.

I've never seen that, but if certain people get upset about that, then they're ignoring the reality that the human brain often forgets things. They aren't special, and there's no particular reason that you'd remember their name. I think that social convention, if it exists anywhere, is absolute garbage and should be ignored outright.

I don't care about that difference; I simply don't want my government to spy on people without cause.

I'd say violating people's fourth amendment rights is bad. Why would you say otherwise?

From what I see, both are criminal organizations.

What's normal or not normal is irrelevant to me.

Even if true, that's utterly irrelevant.

I'm protesting both.

What freedoms would we be sacrificing if we only implemented the things you suggested?

Then that is where you fail. I do not believe freedoms should be sacrificed in exchange for safety (real or otherwise), and certainly not so after something like the 9/11 attacks.