It's not even abuse in the sense that it will be done with evil intent.. It is, in fact, a natural consequence that even good people will do 'bad things' when

It's not even abuse in the sense that it will be done with evil intent.. It is, in fact, a natural consequence that even good people will do 'bad things' when put in the position. Imagine the following: You, mtgx, are put in charge of protecting the mid-Atlantic states from an attack. You have been given complete access to all of the legally obtained intelligence that the nation has about the region and potential conspirators for said attack. Do you not use it? What are your options? If you don't use it, and the attacks are successful, it will be your fault. You will have to live with the knowledge that your inaction, for whatever higher purpose, cost those lives. I posit that even good people like you would take all of the steps you have available to do your job. Even if by day you are writing letters to the editors begging the nation to take those powers away from you. For a reak example, look no farther than what happened in the case of the Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. It turns out that we had a lot of intelligence on him; the Russians even alerted us that he was trouble. And yet, we did not feel we had enough evidence to invade his privacy. We didn't stop him (this is why I think that the people doing this are basically trying to do the right thing). And when we found out after the bombing that this could have been stopped? The shit hit the fan: People were declaring the FBI/CIA incompetent, etc. The main reason to act on this privacy issue is to help the good people who have to do these jobs, not to stop evil people. The rules are now such that good people have to do evil things in order to be good. We want to keep this in mind so that we solve the right problem.