I don't think the situations you put forward and the conclusions you are drawing from them necessarily follow. In the first example, how often is it that you m

I don't think the situations you put forward and the conclusions you are drawing from them necessarily follow. In the first example, how often is it that you must communicate with someone far away in an hour without any prior coordination? Assuming that is the case, then wouldn't the NSA also have to intercept, decode, translate and mobilise within less than an hour? In that case using those systems may be fine. Or perhaps use those systems to point your cousin to cryptocat or redphone. Anyway I think there is a difference between what might be used for long term planning vs. the immediate communication scenario you outline. In the second example, another poster on a different thread worded it much better than I will here, but I don't think it has to be 4+ million people working towards a conspiracy. I think intelligence work is hard. I think people with the best of intentions will always look for a way to make their job easier. Each individual incremental step may seem small and inconsequential, but over time it leads to a massive overreach. One person then looked up to see the forest instead of the trees and felt it was wrong and spoke out. In that scenario it isn't 4+ million in on a conspiracy or one person wanting to see the world burn it's what I think is typical human nature in large organizations over time.