The government won't listen in on your conversations. No sir.

[dpareja]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/02/26/us-surveillance-law-supreme-court.html

So apparently there's not a high enough probability that the expansion of a surveillance act won't hit domestic citizens to give them standing to sue:

A sharply-divided Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an attempt by U.S. citizens to challenge the expansion of a surveillance law used to monitor conversations of foreign spies and terrorist suspects.

With a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that a group of American lawyers, journalists and organizations can't sue to challenge the 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they can't prove that the government will monitor their conversations along with those of potential foreign terrorist and intelligence targets.

And guess who was in the majority?

Alito was joined in his decision by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Breyer dissented and the other three joined him:

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing in dissent, said that he would have allowed the lawsuit to move forward because he thinks "the government has a strong motive to listen to conversations of the kind described."

"We need only assume that the government is doing its job (to find out about, and combat terrorism) in order to conclude that there is a high probability that the government will intercept at least some electronic communication to which at least some of the plaintiffs are party," Breyer said. "The majority is wrong when it describes the harm threatened plaintiffs as 'speculative,' " Breyer said.

He was joined in his dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

But there was something left open:

"It is possible that the monitoring of the target's conversations with his or her attorney would provide grounds for a claim of standing on the part of the attorney," Alito said. "Such an attorney would certainly have a stronger evidentiary basis for establishing standing than do respondents in the present case."

Yeah, and how are you supposed to know if you're being monitored, or is there something I'm missing?

EDIT: I can't count.

[Old Viking]

Very few of us could monitor random conversations between average Americans for more than one shift without resorting to suicide.

[MadCatTLX]

Well you would know they were monitoring you when it's presented as evidence in a court.

That's assuming they'd give you a trial. I seem to remember there being something about indefinite detention for whatever reason if they suspect you are a terrorist or spy, and they need no evidence and never have to give you a trial as apparently you lose all rights as a human.

 There's no way that could ever be be abused, right?

[Distind]

Well you would know they were monitoring you when it's presented as evidence in a court.

That's assuming they'd give you a trial. I seem to remember there being something about indefinite detention for whatever reason if they suspect you are a terrorist or spy, and they need no evidence and never have to give you a trial as apparently you lose all rights as a human.

 There's no way that could ever be be abused, right?

Of course how exactly else do you stop terrorists in a world that a stop to home depot could result in a dozen deaths within the hour?

People asked to be protected, they're getting exactly what they asked for, even if they didn't understand it's implications.