Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism
by Glenn Greenwald
Numerous polls taken since our reporting on previously secret NSA activities first began have strongly suggested major public opinion shifts in how NSA surveillance and privacy are viewed. But a new comprehensive poll released over the weekend weekend by Pew Research
provides the most compelling evidence yet of how stark the shift is.
Among other things, Pew finds that "a majority of Americans – 56% – say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts." And "an even larger percentage (70%) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism." Moreover, "63% think the government is also gathering information about the content of communications." That demonstrates a decisive rejection of the US government's three primary defenses of its secret programs: there is adequate oversight; we're not listening to the content of communication; and the spying is only used to Keep You Safe™.
But the most striking finding is this one:
"Overall, 47% say their greater concern about government anti-terrorism policies is that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties, while 35% say they are more concerned that policies have not gone far enough to protect the country. This is the first time in Pew Research polling that more have expressed concern over civil liberties than protection from terrorism since the question was first asked in 2004."
For anyone who spent the post-9/11 years defending core liberties against assaults relentlessly perpetrated in the name of terrorism, polling data like that is nothing short of shocking. This Pew visual underscores what a radical shift has occurred from these recent NSA disclosures:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/29-2
= new reply since forum marked as read
But I would put my money on another flurry of blue link posts telling us that the people don't really think that, black is white, up is down, and loyalty to party must come before anything else unless you want the Libertarians to win. 
Released: July 26, 2013
A majority of Americans – 56% – say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts. An evenPerceptions of the Governments Data Collection Program larger percentage (70%) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism ...
Nonetheless, the public’s bottom line on government anti-terrorism surveillance is narrowly positive. The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted July 17-21 among 1,480 adults, finds that 50% approve of the government’s collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts, while 44% disapprove. These views are little changed from a month ago, when 48% approved and 47% disapproved ...
Overall, 47% say their greater concern about government anti-terrorism policies is that they have gone too far in restricting the average person’s civil liberties, Both Parties Divided in Civil Liberties Concerns over Anti-Terrorism Programswhile 35% say they are more concerned that policies have not gone far enough to protect the country. This is the first time in Pew Research polling that more have expressed concern over civil liberties than protection from terrorism since the question was first asked in 2004 ...
The public is divided over whether the news media should report on information it obtains about the secret methods the government is using to fight terrorism. About half (47%) say that the media should report on the government’s secret methods, while the same percentage says they should not; overall opinion on this question is little changed from May 2006 ...
http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/26/few-see-adequate-limits-on-nsa-surveillance-program/
US opinion on this is the usual confused mish-mash: "There aren't adequate limits, and we generally think it's gone too far, but we still sort of support it"
