First, when you have to structure an argument around "they should just find a different country to live in", you know you're in the weeds.
Second, when you're talking about the majority of Americans finding a new country to live in, you're not just in the weeds, but also howling at the moon from them.
Third, it is fallacious to presume that people who don't have a problem with what NSA is doing now don't respect the 4th Amendment. It's right there in the text of the Constitution: searches must be reasonable. The Constitution punts on what "reasonable" means; that's why they used that word. There's no absolute for you to fall back on here.
I happen to agree with you that omnibus metadata collection is dangerous and should be further checked by the law, but I can also see both sides of the issue, and you can't, and I think you should try.
Like you, I'd like to consider myself decently well-versed on the issues and able to sympathize with both sides. However, I'm also coming from the position of hearing Greenwald describe an imminent set of leaks that describe the wholesale collection of phone conversation contents [1] (not just metadata) which IMO changes things drastically. You have to be reading from a dictionary of antonyms to find that under the definition of reasonable.
I would personally be fine with just having more transparency and using warrants issued by real (not secret) courts, even if we keep some of the technologies themselves, since I'm sure they are powerful tools to protect against the real threat of terrorism. But yes, when I consider the millions of lives that have been given to accomplish and defend the set of protections we have as Americans, I do mean it when I say that those who prefer security to freedom should consider finding a different country in which to live, even if it's not logistically feasible to do so. That's just because I'm personally an idealistic, rather than pragmatic, person.
I also apologize for getting overly political in this thread. I'm just coming off the tails of the rally yesterday.
Do you know what scares me (as they say "with all due respect") statements like this:
"I'm just coming off the tails of the rally yesterday."
(Emotion involved in your thinking process? We're not talking about a brutal attack that you yourself witnessed. We are talking about being at a rally and hearing what someone is saying. A great thing about HN is the discourse on both sides and even then there can be a echo chamber and crowd effect.)
"I'm also coming from the position of hearing Greenwald describe an imminent set of leaks"
(Accuracy of this information - have you decided he is correct?)
If I had to label myself (and I don't like to label myself) I would say I am the opposite of this:
"I'm personally an idealistic, rather than pragmatic, person"
Why does that scare you? The commenter made an honest disclosure of a relevant activity, indicating that they have strong feelings about the subject. Discouraging such disclosures doesn't prevent parties from having strong feelings, but rather may encourage them to conceal their motivations. People can have feelings, and still maintain honesty in their arguments. Expecting everyone to have a detached objectiveness might be ideal (or might not), but is an unrealistic expectation; entirely impractical in a public debate.
I think it's great that it was disclosed my intention was not to give someone a reason not to disclose although I guess I see how that might be the result of a comment like mine. (As a side note that's not an entirely infrequent occurrence on HN "shoot first" (downvote) based upon agreement or disagreement not wanting to hear opposing views.
Second, when you're talking about the majority of Americans finding a new country to live in, you're not just in the weeds, but also howling at the moon from them.
Third, it is fallacious to presume that people who don't have a problem with what NSA is doing now don't respect the 4th Amendment. It's right there in the text of the Constitution: searches must be reasonable. The Constitution punts on what "reasonable" means; that's why they used that word. There's no absolute for you to fall back on here.
I happen to agree with you that omnibus metadata collection is dangerous and should be further checked by the law, but I can also see both sides of the issue, and you can't, and I think you should try.