When analyzing whether the civil liberties have been eroded, asking a specific person how it has impacted him is not the correct way to proceed.

The question to be asked is does the policy underquestion impact anyone's civil rights (including, unfortunately, those of alleged and suspected criminals). If it does, then the policy needs to be reviewed on that basis.

The second question to ask is whether the policy under question could impact someone who is not guilty of any alleged crime.

For example, the wiretapping rule, may impact a legitimate importer of good, if the party on the other side fears (rightly or wrongly) that he is on this secret, warrantless, database of foreign phone numbers being monitored.

Or, may impact a lawyer who has a foreign client he is representing on some matter but the client fears being on this list.

There is no question that this secret list of foreign numbers, the warrantless nature of the beast, and the lack of any oversight erodes civil rights.

Is it the case that the benefits outweigh the erosion of rights? How many rights can be eroded in pursuit of the benefits? How many rights can be eroded by secret decisions made by the administration? Should we be willing to trust any administration (on principle) and allow this kind of erosion in secrecy and without review?