Do realize that the surveillance framework is first and foremost about quashing mass movements borne of discontent. It has not 'come on-line' in a real sense mostly because there is yet no need. To a large degree the system works by simple intimidation (and to this end it is necessary at some point to uncover it's scale.) At a later phase, if it comes to this, it would be used for active policing.
.....The surveillance framework is probably not really well suited to protecting itself in a functional democracy which, arguably, we still have here in the US. I make no apologies for believing that the most logical and suitable avenue of approach to this battle is old-school-democracy style politics and plain-Jane marketing/propaganda. This, in part, because 'our side' has the moral high ground. The alternate seems to be to sit around fantasizing about some revolution or what-not. It would be advisable to do some hard-nosed planning for such an eventuality, but not at the expense of neglecting more immediate efforts
- Recently we say Eric Holder grab massive data from Verizon. He didn't use the NSA for that - he sent a court order to Verizon.
- The IRS is developing a comprehensive database on us, supposedly including all credit card and bank data.
- The forthcoming Obamacare database would hold intimate details on every American.
- Local police departments are close to being able to track most vehicles on the road by combining mosaic data from the uploaded records of their camera systems, both stationary and mobile.
The threats to liberties thus are occurring at multiple levels of government, and at each level in multiple places.
Evidence of the political use of the datasets exists. Evidence exists that the major commercial companies involved in the NSA scandal will hand over data sets to anyone who has a buddy who is a judge.
In the last year, we've seen a number of news stories about "the Democrats data center" and "how the smart guys at Google helped Obama win". But at that time we didn't know the "how".
Now it is pretty obvious.
Here is a concrete example of why I think focusing on the NSA is a red herring. Suppose you encrypt all your phone calls and data, increase your use of VPN and Tor, increase the use of cash and btc versus tracable credit card charges, encrypt computers and databases on the clouds, so forth and so on.
Assume further that in that fight for privacy you fully utilize emerging tools that the market will provide which we haven't seen yet - and which will be very powerful and cheap.
Suppose the NSA notices this pattern and it's filters respond by "keeping the data forever".
So WHAT?
That does not have anything to do with whether the thugs under Eric Holder get or can use those datasets, or the IRS, or the Dept. of Agriculture, or the political operatives of the Democrats, or any other of the current or future corrupt operations that may come to be.
So I would argue that the figure is against the primary sources of the data aggregation which then benefits the various government agencies seeking to get it. And this would mean, yes, against Google and Yahoo ... and you can go on down that list. The fight is to prevent their aggregating data in a useful form, and your privacy interests are diametrically opposed to their commercial interests.
Seems like that's what it's come to.