In stories like this I never see a discussion of the upside of our elected leaders being monitored. I'm reminded of the show alias where they had a "security se

In stories like this I never see a discussion of the upside of our elected leaders being monitored. I'm reminded of the show alias where they had a "security section" that monitored everyone, even the head of the secret organization was monitored and subject to repercussions for breaking the rules. On the face of it, it seems like a good thing for our elected leaders to be monitored to a degree to ensure no outside influence or abuse of power. The threat isn't the monitoring, but the fact that information gathered from monitoring can be used to influence the balance of power. If there were a "sacred wall" between those doing the monitoring and those with political power, such a scenario could work. It's the same concept of separation of powers in the branches of government, or the separation of the three branches of the military: diffusion of power. One group holds all the guns, another group holds all the information. Neither is of ultimate power without the other. Of course we would then need another group or process that could monitor access and usage of information without itself having total access to it. Of course none of this would justify blanket monitoring of the public at large. But elected officials and those who may potentially be given large amounts of power and trust by the public shouldn't be subject to the same rules.