Great informative article, but at times the posing is naive or supporting a certain narrative. For instance: The government goes after Islamic terrorists and M

Great informative article, but at times the posing is naive or supporting a certain narrative. For instance: The government goes after Islamic terrorists and Mexican illegal immigrants. So what to complain about? Mix cause and effect to pose the illegal immigrants as targeting based on race. Or pose the extremist religious as vulnerable Muslims, targeted on religion. Remove their status as far away from the cold-hard reality, so you can claim racism and prejudice and use that to cripple surveillance. But the suspect is a "citizen"! All weasel words to stay away from the real dirt. Let's go after the atheists for counter terrorism, so we don't discriminate in the eyes of the ACLU... Then the "ineffective against terrorism"-claim. This can't be supported, because no clear numbers/cases are known. Then conflate laws against terrorism with actual actions against terrorism: Sure, no law directly contributed against countering terrorists, but the surveillance certainly did. Thanks NSA for passing along information to my country many times, so we could capture really dangerous people before they could strike. Anti-terrorism is also a red herring for surveillance efficiency. Surveillance predominantly used for other national security purposes, such as counter intelligence, foreign intelligence, border safety, crime fighting, and even economic espionage. Sure, posing any immigrant as a bad hombre, potential MS-13 gang member, selling your children fentanyl-laced drugs, is ridiculous. But the other side of that same coin is posing bad people as vulnerable undocumented citizens who are being targeted on race. It does not do justice to the situation on the ground.