&gt; That&#x27;s like saying gun control advocates only argue as they do because they don&#x27;t understand guns. It&#x27;s a really silly argument.<p>It&#x27;s a completely valid argument in both cases. Banning only the scary-looking guns has no productive effect. And if you ask normal people whether they think government employees should be able to read steamy messages between husband and wife, the answer is going to be no.<p>Also keep in mind that push polling is a thing. Every time you hear a statistic like &quot;only 27% of Americans oppose mass surveillance,&quot; expect that the question was whether the government should be able to tap your phone if it was the only possible way to prevent a terrorist attack that would kill you.<p>If you ask whether large numbers of government employees and contractors should be able to know everything about your business and sex life if it would have the same effectiveness in catching terrorists as a variety of alternative methods that would shovel fewer tax dollars into the pockets of large government contractors, you get a different answer.