Do you care that you're under constant surveillance?

No because as new revelations show this is a worldwide (France, Australia, Sweden, Canada etc)

I also don't see it as constant surveillance, the government don't have a file on everybody with their online habits and movements.

Honestly, I don't really care that much.

And by the way, if I don't want someone to know about something, I won't talk about it on the phone.

Most of the time, the surveillance is being used for good things. They won't constantly check on one person if they know you're not up to anything or if you aren't suspicious.

I don't support it, but let's face it: How does it affect your life unless you are a criminal? It's not like they constantly check on everything you do/say.

How does that make it ok?

You got any evidence for that?

So you're pretty insignificant, but what about judges, politicians the press?

How does that make it ok?
You got any evidence for that?

Honestly, I don't really care that much.

And by the way, if I don't want someone to know about something, I won't talk about it on the phone.

Most of the time, the surveillance is being used for good things. They won't constantly check on one person if they know you're not up to anything or if you aren't suspicious.

I don't support it, but let's face it: How does it affect your life unless you are a criminal? It's not like they constantly check on everything you do/say.

It doesn't, it just normalizes it and makes me care less

and think maybe there's a legitimate reason for it if most governments, even very liberal ones, are doing it.

The information we currently know doesn't support the claim of "constant surveillance".

That's fine as long as the people in control of it are not going to abuse their position of power.

The problem is that the definition of what's "criminal" can change, ranging from the obvious stuff which should remain criminal like paedophilia and terrorism to things which might be deemed less so like protest and so forth. The technology can be used to crack down on any of those things should the people in charge so wish, some of which is good, other parts less so. It's the potential to do great harm which is worrying.

Aside from this the police have shown time and again that they are clearly capable of corruption and improper use of this technology - just look a few weeks back to the case of them spying on the Lawrence family... you really think that (or worse) will never happen again?

To quote/paraphrase Ben Franklin, "those who give up a little liberty (in this case the freedom from invasion of privacy) to obtain a little security deserve neither and will lose both"

Well what about them? if they haven't done anything wrong they have nothing to worry about. And it will reduce corruption, bias, blackmail, etc.

Would you rather be subject to more danger and not be under occasional surveillance or be in more safety and have someone listen to your calls every now and then?

And yes, there is evidence, provided by common sense: If they were to have a file about every single person of the 63 million in the UK, it would take them forever. Let alone the US with 314 million.

Maybe, maybe they've been blackmailed into it with NSA surveillance data, who knows.

Does it not? Seems to to me.

That's just bull**** sentiment which tries to elevate responsibility from European governments and push it onto America. Why do you think GCHQ was created? Or DGSE? All these intelligence agencies have the same agenda as NSA. The US isn't forcing them to do ****, they're happily cooperating with each other because that's what allies do. Do you think those governments don't benefit from the data? We've had a agreement with US since the 1940s.

That would depend on your definition of constant surveillance to me, considering the scope of it doesn't extend to all citizens then I don't really classify it as constant surveillance of everyone.

That's fine as long as the people in control of it are not going to abuse their position of power.

The problem is that the definition of what's "criminal" can change, ranging from the obvious stuff which should remain criminal like paedophilia and terrorism to things which might be deemed less so like protest and so forth. The technology can be used to crack down on any of those things should the people in charge so wish, some of which is good, other parts less so. It's the potential to do great harm which is worrying.

Aside from this the police have shown time and again that they are clearly capable of corruption and improper use of this technology - just look a few weeks back to the case of them spying on the Lawrence family... you really think that (or worse) will never happen again?

To quote/paraphrase Ben Franklin, "those who give up a little liberty (in this case the freedom from invasion of privacy) to obtain a little security deserve neither and will lose both"