People like you always fall back on the 'if it's deemed legal, it's ok' excuse.
You really know nothing about me or my positions, please don't assume such. I simply used a few extra words to request his definition of "unreasonable" as that, to me, is the very heart of any intelligent debate here and he completely skipped it. The law has been reviewed and found constitutional. The actions of the NSA have been reviewed and found Constitutional in theory and only in specific, albeit common, practice unconstitutional. The debate as I've seen it has been on the difference between Feinstien et. all's definition of reasonable, and the 99%'s definition of reasonable (My use of "99%" is an exaggerated presumption; it just sounds nice to steal it).
This is what the government does. We both know that while 'unreasonable' is left undefined, it's obviously being expanded constantly towards the meaning of "do whatever you want."
That it is (Especially the commerce clause recently which, by its exact definition today absurdly covers everything). Customs & Border Patrol already have the right to search & seize anything and everything as long as their activities are "routine". Considering that a very common argument against the NSA's tapping & meta-data related activities include the Government's pedantic differentiation of physical papers from electronic files, it would seem logical that the same people presenting that argument against would accept the converse: it is constitutional for an agency with a different name to perform the same type of routine investigations of electronic traffic crossing virtual international borders. So, what is the definition of unreasonable as it pertains to the 4th Amendment and the electronic searches?
Multiple 'wrongs' can and do make a 'right'. It just depends on the subjective definitions of each. Besides, governments engaging in illegal activities have not business calling other people traitors.
All governments engage in illegal activity at some point or another. Does that mean there can never be traitors? Governments are still composed of individual humans and are still constrained by human flaws. Including mob mentality, going with the flow, not making waves, or whatever phrase you want to use to describe it. What you're saying sounds to me like you're refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of our Federal government (Or maybe you're just an anarchist?). Feinstein is not "The Government". She is one (powerful) individual that consistently wins re-election in a liberal leaning state, indicating the people's support of her positions and actions. Neither is amiga3D "The Government". (S)He is one individual that expressed support for the NSA's position and was not only flagged a troll, but was called a moron for having an opinion that differs from the /. group-think.
It just compounds the lie.
'The mob'? Interesting choice of vocabulary. One of the definitions of mob is "a secret organized group of criminals." I think that applies more to people, like feinstein, who are members of the two big elite parties, and the last few administrations, than it does to snowden, or ordinary americans who are rightfully angry over having their freedoms, rights, and liberty taken away a piece at a time. You're right. There's a big case of narcissistic, histrionic elitism here, but you've wrongly identified the 'patients.'
I did not apply the term to Snowden or his supporters or the government. I applied it to /. commentators and moderators. Like so many other stories, there is not 1 single dissenting comment in this board moderated to 5: insightful, informative, or even funny. However there are numerous posts, like amiga3D's, that are so very clearly moderated -1: disagree. Amiga3D didn't offer much in the way of facts, but there was certainly room there to bring things up or at least ask questions. Most intriguing I thought was his comment on the NSA's actions as they pertain to Congress. i.e. it was a chance to start a discussion in a discussion forum (and so I tried). The mob mentality I'm speaking of is that which is stifling discussion by shouting down anybody that disagrees. Browsing with a 5 threshold still leaves me with having to weed through trashtalking, insulting, harrumph harrumph, "I'm smart because everybody agrees with me although all I did was copy/paste somebody else's opinion from the internet" crap worthy of a Rush Limbaugh show.