I really don't agree that that's equivalent, but I understand your point. Certainly if the power balance were different, it might be a legitimate fear. (If the

I really don't agree that that's equivalent, but I understand your point. Certainly if the power balance were different, it might be a legitimate fear. (If the french government gave me problems, it would be pretty easy for me to find protection from my own government. Wouldn't be so easy if I was in Pakistan, looking for protection from the US, I suppose.) I do agree we should refrain from mass surveillance on non-US citizens, but I don't think that achieving that is realistic at this juncture. The intelligence community is in excited-puppy mode about all the cool things they can do with the internet[1], and it'll be a bit before they and their elected overlords figure out what's useful, what's not, and how surveillance can be better performed without playing godzilla to the city of rights. For now, what I think is reasonable is a more straightforward, open disclosure of what and how the NSA monitors. And now I need to stop commenting on this article until I've actually read the proposed reform in its entirety. (And you all should too. Hah.) [1] Calling it an "insurance policy", really? "We've never had to use it, but it's too cool to give up."