Well played, sir.
I agree with most of your assertions, but I think that there are grey areas, and that it is important to acknowledge them.
For example, if a friend of mine is having a conversation with a third person, I may sit in on the conversation without any intended malice. I may hear things that I might not otherwise hear. These things may alter my perceptions about 'how friendly is my friend'.
This is vastly different to bugging his house, but it is an example of me gathering information about the world around me. And I think the difference between the two is to do with a) being open and honest about the information gathering efforts; and b) respecting people's privacy, by allowing them to exclude me from their conversation - though that act would make me concerned about my 'how friendly is my friend'.
I think that there is a line between reasonable intelligence gathering and blatant spying - but that is not so well defined. Snowden has revealed behaviour by the US that is clearly over the line - I think that much is agreed. Whether it represents an act of war against allies, or is simply a bargaining chip at the next G20 summit is a debate that will never happen. Politicians are consummate professionals at not answering the questions that matter.
And that, I believe, is the point. Most western societies are fed up with their governments lying and deceiving them, but are hopelessly disempowered from changing anything. Governments are in the business of disempowering their people for their own good. I doubt that will change in our lifetimes.