The point of omnipresent surveillance is to be proactive and prevent threats before they arise. There is no way to measure its success. If you oppose it, pick a better reason to base your argument on.
Unlike you, I don't believe success, or really anything, is necessary to justify the existence of the NSA or what they do. Realistically, that boat sailed the first time necessary and proper was invoked.
How considerate. As if the legal system matters at all to the existence of the NSA. Wikimedia's case notwithstanding, it's abundantly clear the spy agencies can only be peacefully resisted with privacy enhancing technology. It's obvious why they've been degrading public cryptographic standards and pushing for back doors.
The Stasi controlled every aspect of life in East Germany, including the postal service and communications industry. In the US, FOIA documents reveal a history of domestic political spying on civil-rights leaders such as MLK, and on a wide variety of legitimate organizations.
Throughout history, suspicionless surveillance has been carried out by mafioso to oppress and control.
Of your suspicionless surveillance, you assert "this time is different". The assertion fails.
The Nazis could use your arguments word for word on dissenters of the Gestapo.
