Re: Not allowed to be secure
Whilst no fan of this, it does have to be pointed out that it has been like this probably since government began. The leader (this can include multi-party governance as well) thinks he is the right one to be leading, no matter how objectively correct that opinion is, and there are always functionaries who will garner information on his (their) enemies for a number of reasons. Let's not forget that Walsingham his a hero to a great many people* because he intercepted communications between private people - Catholics - who had a different point of view about how England should be run, and so probably contributed to a great change in the path of European history. The fact the Soviets (for example) did exactly the same makes them bad people ...
To me, the question is not "Should it be done?" but "What are the limitations and protections that should be placed on it?" Given that we are in an extremely low-risk world at the moment (religious nutters don't constitute a serious threat, and the number of countries we should worry about is small and most nominally constitute our friends), the limitations on internal surveillance should be high, and the level of spying on other countries should be at the usual background level for that country.
*Including me.