> Email that isn’t related to intelligence is rarely viewed, and it’s even less often viewed if it’s from a US citizen.<p>The fact that it can be viewed at all is the problem. Someone else doesn't get to decide for me what is private information and what isn't.
> "They’re looking for intelligence about foreign entities of interest"<p>And the NSA can decide who is of interest, of course, so for me "entities of interest" and "Everyone" is the same.<p>I could just say that I don't care since I have nothing to hide, but I am concerned.<p>Your article did not convince me of the need to monitor the whole Earth communications for intelligence just because the law allows it.
This is a rambling stream of non-sequiturs and misleading statements. A key pull quote is "The NSA is not a law enforcement agency."<p>So? From the motto "We track 'em, you whack 'em" to parallel construction, we already know that's not a meaningful distinction. Then, ramble ramble ramble... we come to how North Korea is sufficient justification for a Cold War era budget for snooping. What?<p>Is this the best an NSA analyst can come up with? TL;DR: Claims of good intentions, feigned boredom about your emails (unless some software flags them), North Korea, and "we're not the cops?" This is very very weak.