Those who would give up Essential Common Sense to purchase a little Temporary Ideological Certainty, with earn neither Sense nor Security

I had a recent conversation (if you could call it that) on BoingBoing, discussing the recently-re-leaked NSA programs, and President Obama's comments in particular.  I think it is telling of the rhetoric and drastic reactions that the leaks are causing; reactions that may have been considerably less extreme had PRISM and the phone dumps been revealed by the President or government, and in a more measured manner.  

Me: 

"I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."Can someone please try and explain how that statement can *possibly* be wrong?"

millie fink: 

"It's a false dichotomy, and a lie by omission.
It totally overlooks the reality of what's being imposed on us in terms of loss of privacy, along with the many risks of overreaching surveillance. Have you ever heard, for starters, of a novel called "1984"?" 

Me again, with a response far too long for the setting:

"Yes, I think I remember reading in seventh grade.  You're probably right, of course, so I'll alert the people and we can storm the Ministry of Truth together.Can you even take yourself seriously, saying that?  If so, I'm very impressed; I haven't managed to muster that kind of fanatical zeal for anything since Firefly was canceled.And my entire point is that trying to have either security or liberty is a false dichotomy; it can't possible to have both entirely, OR just one or the other because of the very nature of the statement.  Is it really impossible for you to imagine a situation in which limits on the government’s ability to track down criminals and gather intelligence on terrorists could prevent some useful information? Is there no scenario in which using more invasive technology, techniques, or just plain aggressive interviewing could lead to better policing?Of course even the most radical extremist has to admit that police should be able to hold someone in a police station if they're found with blood on their hands of a street down from the murder. Likewise, the government should be able to tap peoples phones, email, and other communication when they have clear evidence of an immediate and present danger to people's lives. This situation very clearly sits between extremes; the government did and does actually have legal authority to carry out these invasions of privacy by law, by approval by all three branches; legislative, judicial, and executive.   Could this still be a violation of constitutional rights? Of course; I think you, I, and plenty of people including those doing the surveillance could easily agree on that. However that line is much, much fuzzier then most will admit, probably because it makes the answer more difficult. What makes it even more difficult to judge is when we don't even know what's going on, which is why I think Snowden’s leaks were an incredibly brave and helpful thing to do. That said, I can't imagine how prism hasn't helped the government track down and find bad people. So where should the line be drawn?  How do we reign in what are clearly unconstitutional searches by any reasonable standard while still allowing the government access to critical information? I ask myself that continually, but it doesn't help when people freak but and have impossible delusions of never needing to have any possible rights of privacy invaded.  I believe there is a great deal of truth to candidate Obama statements; especially when examining the atmosphere post-9/11 when torture was sanctioned government policy, and the only question for the Intelligence – Industrial complex was how to expand more. That has been reigned in, in significant ways. It has also not been controlled in other significant ways. Candidate Obama didn't have to sit down and be told about foiled plots to murder innocent Americans; but President Obama doesn't have to face up to the American public when the creepy surveillance programs are all secret."

Obama may already have lost people like this; the libertarian, the civil-rights fighter, the freedom-liberal, the paranoid and conspiracy-bent – this portion of the populous may have never supported any current president in any situation.  But this certainly isn't going to make things easier for him and the spooks.