When its done in 3rd world countries, western countries stating this is against privacy and violating human rights. But when western countries do it, its to protect national security!
Btw I'm not against it, I'm against the way of dealing with it.
The U.S. State Department even funds efforts to help people elsewhere evade monitoring by their own governments. They have a new round of funding proposals open right now. (By the way, I don't mean to criticize these efforts; I think they're completely appropriate and beneficial, and I think they've funded some good work, from what I regard as benign motives. It's just funny to think about the way that different parts of the government think about communications surveillance when they're putting a different lens on it.)
I've been to events where people confronted western government representatives about this issue, and they usually talked about the importance of being a liberal democracy, which, to put a pejorative cast on it, immunizes you from criticism for doing the same things that you criticize other states for.
/s
I also wouldn't mind seeing some stats, that surveillance is an effective tool against the threats you listed.
But even in this quote the weasel word "essential" is included in the term "essential Liberty". So what is absolutely essential? Could there be legitimate disagreements on that?