That is an excellent question, to which I don’t have an answer. I know a few of the things that I would want said in there, and the general philosophies I would want followed, but I understand that I would have no say, and do not know how the country as a whole would figure it all out.
This only happens if there some system in place that can autonomously analyze all behaviors and look for perceived faults. The NSA system doesn’t do that; they pull data on specific people.
Law enforcement doesn’t work by investigating everybody on the off chance they’re doing something wrong. That’s inefficient and impractical.
Edit: Also, ‘rebooting’ the constitution is an incredibly stupid idea. TGP, have you even read it? There aren’t a whole lot of laws in there.
Constitutional reboot is step one, rewriting all laws is step two, but you need a new constitution that forbids certain laws from being passed in the first place. Try to keep up here.
I’m kind of Nihilist and Conspiracist at once. I’m paranoid about it (as much as I am with everything) but I don’t see how my uneventful life could matter in any way to anyone.
they didn’t get enough votes, SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!
the point is that they can investigate any individual (not OMG EVERYBODY) on the basis of suspicion
in any normal free society, evidence is required for that (or at the very least probable cause)
so in effect they’re bypassing the separation of powers, which is another way of saying: they’re operating a police state
you know, there is a reason civil and human rights and international law exist, and this business violates all of that
if you’re not even slightly offended by this, you’re basically saying you don’t value freedom or democracy
i mean, they were caught wiretapping the head of state of one of the most powerful nations in europe… you want me to believe that’s not a big deal?
…“The Exhibitionist”, I see.
I think that’s called a coup.
How does restricting the government’s ability to access data become “free”?
Shouldn’t a free society enable its government to freely access information? 
While that initially seems tongue-in-cheek, what determines a free society is not how much information the government is able to obtain-- it is, in fact, what the government chooses to do with the information at its disposal that determines how free a society is.
Where there is data there will always be abuse. It comes down to what government and society do about that. Right now, it is the governments (not only the US) that encroach more and more on fundamental civil rights while in the other hand abuse is not addressed properly but rather tolerated or worse: those in power don’t know enough about technology and its capabilities to grasp what they are actually doing to society.
Only if you force it on people. If you convince the whole country that it is needed, well, that’s something special (and not ever going to happen, but I can still hope, no matter how ridiculous that hope is :3 ).
Can you… convince them by force? :3
Here’s the downside of complete systematic upheavals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKERC6F7mSM
Are you serious? Do you realize how big of a logical fallacy that is?
The rest of us are glad you aren’t
If someone can determine your fate, then you are not free. It’s a facade then. It’s the illusion that you are free.
If the government has more power than the people, then the government is no longer of the people, nor for it.
“The government” isn’t some separate entity (or shouldn’t be), it is (should be) an organizational structure. It shouldn’t treat its citizens (and everyone else) as suspects. It should be its citizens.
If it wasn’t for Snowden, we wouldn’t even know “what the government chooses to do.” And what it chooses to do, at the very least, does not justify the resources it consumes.
“Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t mean anything to you?
I agree with you up to a point. The government is a separate entity in a sense. It’s an entity that is created to serve the people, and therefore has only a few things it is designed and allowed to do. The rest are restricted by a set of laws.
I agree with what you are trying to say though. The government’s bounds should be fundamentally restricted, and it shouldn’t be up to a government worker to determine the state of our “fundamental rights.”
Yes, though everything is restricted by a set of laws, called the constitution. Which is another thing they are violating.