police chiefs and mayors take their orders from governors

No, they don't. There is no chain-of-command in civil government of different levels (such as between state governors and mayors). Mayors are locally elected, not appointed by governors — their authority is derived from the voters. As is the Governors' and the President's too.

governors (who also command the National Guard)

Actually, President is Commander in Chief of all National Guard.

[governors] take orders from Congress / the White House

Nope, they do not. What a silly idea! Do you really need an immigrant to point out these glaring errors in your civics education?!

It got a bit too friendly with russia

You mean, a "Worker's Revolution" made it likely to become USSR's 16th republic — fixed that for you.

That won't happen, simply because it's _convenient_ for western powers to have a bogeyman of their own to keep their populations on a leash

Conspiracy theory nonsense.

There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

I am well aware of — and generally agree with — the sentiment, but, in my opinion, the current concerns are misplaced.

Until these civilian police are also placed under the same command as the military, the police — along with their advanced weapons — will remain a counterbalance against some future Hugo Chavez...

Yes, the police agencies discussed in TFA are, largely, federal — and thus already under the Commander in Chief's authority. But the local police departments, that are "militarized" nationwide are not.

Let's see you track me when the phone cannot transmit or receive

Let's see you use it as a navigation device in such a state... Google, at least, gives you some value in exchange for your privacy — the navigation instructions you get from Google Maps will consider the actual current driving conditions (as much as Google knows them, of course). To get that information, you must tell Google, where you are — and where you are going...

Their cars aren't on the market yet. They have no data on my driving.

Google Maps — on every Android phone, and on many iPhones as well. If you use it — and many people do — here is, what Google knows about where you've been.

the issue is that the police in this country have shown that they cannot be trusted

No police anywhere in the world can be "trusted" to stick to legal methods in doing their jobs.

Such is their job:

1. they must have severe powers over us to do it at all;
2. those powers often go into their heads — and they are hardly the only government employees, who are convinced, they "know better" than their subjects ever will;
3. they deal with the worst among us quite often (shielding the rest of us from it), which further shapes their opinions and default course of actions.

If anything, American police are, probably, well above your average bribe-taking empty uniform...

I didn't realize we took the worst reported use as the standard use.

You must be new here...

And even then, when used with a warrant, I see this as preferable to a bunch of cops rounding corners, getting scared and shooting.

The problem, of course, is not the warranted use of such devices — it is the routine unwarranted (as in "without a warrant") usage, which gives me creeps.

But nice to see Illiberals confounded by the dilemma of "taxes are good" vs. "government surveillance is bad"...

Is not it great, how much civilization you can buy with your taxes today?

Wait till your corporations trade secrets are leaked because the FBI's collector was insecure.

Yes, if that ever happens, a corporation's bottom line will be affected, and it (and others) will begin fighting it.

But a principled stand? Don't count on it...

I imagine corporations will fight back legally if/when their employees start getting hacked by the FBI.

Why would a corporation care? One must either have something to hide or be upset at unwarranted searches as a matter of principle to be bothered. And only the latter reason would drive someone to actively fight it — those with anything to hide will quietly (re)hide it elsewhere.

Though I don't share the disdain towards KKKorporations, that some people exhibit, I am not under an illusion, they'll make a principled stand on anything, that does not affect their bottom line either.

No, it is up to us, citizens — corporate CEOs included...