"But the 2013 Snowden revelations damaged that tenuous relationship yet again. In hindsight the damage wasn’t the result of what the United States was doing, bu

"But the 2013 Snowden revelations damaged that tenuous relationship yet again. In hindsight the damage wasn’t the result of what the United States was doing, but over the Pentagon’s inability and unwillingness to own up to why it was doing it: After the intelligence failure of 9/11, security agencies overcompensated by widespread, warrantless datamining as well as electronic and telephonic surveillance, including on U.S. persons. Without a clear explanation of why this had been done, startups,..." I don't think that lack of understanding of the reasons for surveillance is the problem. It is quite common for people to understand the desire to fight terrorism and prevent another 9/11, and still understand that the NSA's methods are ripe for abuse. Lying to Congress about the nature of the program (the what, not the why) doesn't inspire confidence that abuse won't happen. I find the idea that the reasons for surveillance was simply not explained very well to be ahistorical. Perhaps that's just the bubble I've been in though.