I mean, where do you think analysis of plans by terrorists and nation state adversaries to attack our nation and its allies comes from? The raw intelligence data these are based on can only be gathered by surveillance of communications, both targeted and in bulk.
You should all be supporting this, as you benefit from it every day.
Many people worried that the PATRIOT Act was overreach for surveillance, but the bill did pass. What happened with Mark's whistleblowing is that policymakers and the public found out that there were other programs, potentially illegal under even the PATRIOT Act (and, indeed the US Constitution), that had been hidden or obfuscated to their oversight bodies.
(Incidentally, the government's strategy in the cases against the NSA program was to say that even asking about legal authorisation and grounding of the program was in itself, a violation of national security. Many years after Mark's act, Ed Snowden's first published leak was this authorisation document, confirming that Mark was right, and that, had those cases been able to proceed, there would have been grounds for investigation.)
As time travel doesn't exist, this is the next best technology available.
Sadly, governments end up becoming corrupt. In one formerly free nation (or at least it was one that obnoxiously bragged about being one), data about women's periods became weaponized in a witchhunt against abortions.
It also violates the courts' understanding of the law. That's probably why one such program was shut down prior to the Snowden leaks and definitely why the other was shut down after.
Let me put it this way: I don't do anything illegal in my bathroom, but damned if I want someone watching me in there. Everyone has their line they don't want crossed. Klein's - and the EFF's, and mine - is somewhere past the NSA monitoring every single communication in the entire country without a warrant. I have no objection with them monitoring specific suspects with a court order, but I don't want them listening to people who aren't being actively, personally investigated.
As with the issuance of a warrant for wiretapping, there would need to be a proportionate and legitmate reason for your communications within a such a dataset to be looked at.
It's a bit like the police getting a search warrant to look around your home. If there's no legitimate reason to do it, like having reasonable suspicion of a crime that requires investigation, then they're not going to.
And your edit seems to ignore that the analysts are humans. Police get caught abusing their access to data resources for personal gain frequently, why are NSA analysts different?
(Not even touching on the fact that mistakes happen, leaks happen, breaches happen, laws change, political winds change direction)
Yes, it is a bit like this. Except in this case the police don't need a warrant, they can enter your home for any reason at their discretion. You're putting a lot of trust in a bunch of people you've (I'm assuming) never met working for an agency that has demonstrated a complete lack of regard for the constitution. Either that or you're a really terrible glowie: "How do you do, fellow tech enthusiasts??"
What a silly take.
But there have to be limits on this power, or you enable, and even empower, an Orwellian regime.
NSA has been caught, multiple times, flagrantly disregarding the law, violating privacy rights afforded to every citizen by the Constitution, and gathering an amount of data that could easily enable a hostile regime to enact vengeance on dissenters.
So imagine this hostile regime comes to power. Now everyone is forced to either support the regime, or face harsh consequences without recourse. Any plan you construct, or group of supporters you amass, will inevitably be compromised by this machine and eradicated, one way or another.
You have totalitarianism, and no means to resist it. ou've given up your immune system. You no longer have a democracy, even if you do on paper. And before you make the argument that "the ends justify the means" consider that this hostile regime might not share your ends. You may get wrapped up in "the means".
Is that a desirable outcome for you? If not, you should rethink your position. If that outcome seems desirable to you, there are a very limited number of reasons why that could be the case, and none of them are charitable.