>if we can't forbid citizens from photographing in public, why should we forbid our government?
I don't understand this comparison. The very fact that the surveillance is being done by the government changes the meaning of the action. Citizens don't have the power to do anything with the information they might gather through surveillance. Citizens don't have the ability to force all other citizens to pay them more money for funding surveillance programs of ever-increasing scope. Citizens have jobs which exist to serve a real need that exists in the economy, and so realistically wouldn't be doing anything of the same magnitude unless there was popular demand for it.
You're poisoning the well here. There's no evidence that the government is gathering surveillance for any nefarious purpose, or that they're doing it just for the fun of spending your (the taxpayer's) money.
In fact, your argument is somewhat ironic, as it is the same logic used by the police to prevent photographers from photographing in public, as descibed by the OP.
I don't understand this comparison. The very fact that the surveillance is being done by the government changes the meaning of the action. Citizens don't have the power to do anything with the information they might gather through surveillance. Citizens don't have the ability to force all other citizens to pay them more money for funding surveillance programs of ever-increasing scope. Citizens have jobs which exist to serve a real need that exists in the economy, and so realistically wouldn't be doing anything of the same magnitude unless there was popular demand for it.