Trading privacy for...perhaps not much

Kevin Drum argues that the real issue is not whether or not the NSA program is effective or not, about which the NYT writes today, but rather its legality. I disagree somewhat. I agree that the legality trumps the effectiveness. If it's illegal and gets shut down because of that, then it's sort of a moot point whether it works or not. However, according to the polls people are not as concerned about the illegality as one would hope in a country that prides itself on the rule of law. The issue for the voters seems to be, "Is this necessary to catch terrorists?" If people believe it is, then the argument that we should do away with it is going to look small-minded, despite the fact that the small-minded person is defending the constitution.

The argument needs to be made that the administration is sacrificing civil liberties with nothing to show for it. That seems to be the case with the information we have so far. Of course, by nature there is a lack of information. It's one thing to give up some privacy to catch terrorists, it's another thing to just give up some privacy.

Relatedly, thus spake TPM:

The point Gore makes in his speech that I think is most key is the connection between authoritarianism, official secrecy and incompetence.
...
And it's often treated as, well ... he's power-hungry and incompetent to boot! Imagine that! The point though is that they are directly connected. Authoritarianism and secrecy breed incompetence; the two feed on each other. It's a vicious cycle. Governments with authoritarian tendencies point to what is in fact their own incompetence as the rationale for giving them yet more power. Katrina was a good example of this.

At this point I'd prefer the more benign-sounding 'executive power grabbing' to 'authoritarianism.' I prefer to save the punch of my '-ism' accusations. However, I do think there is something to his substantive idea.