Bruce Schneier author of (the terrific)"Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World" writes an op ed at NewsDay.

"Unfortunately, the debate often gets mischaracterized as a question
about how much privacy we need to give up in order to be secure.
People ask: "Should we use this new surveillance technology to
catch terrorists and criminals, or should we favor privacy and ban its
use?"

This is the wrong question. We know that new technology gives law
enforcement new search techniques, and makes existing techniques
cheaper and easier. We know that we are all safer when the police
can use them...

...What we need are corresponding mechanisms to prevent abuse. This
is the proper question: "Should we allow law enforcement to use new
technology without any judicial oversight, or should we demand that
they be overseen and accountable?" And the Fourth Amendment
already provides for this in its requirement of a warrant...

...The key is independent judicial
oversight; the warrant process is itself a security measure protecting
us from abuse and making us more secure.

Much of the rhetoric on the "security" side of the debate cloaks one
of its real aims: increasing law enforcement powers by decreasing its
oversight and accountability. It's a very dangerous road to take, and
one that will make us all less secure. The more surveillance
technologies that require a warrant before use, the safer we all are."

Schneier should be compulsory reading especially for lawmakers and journalists. They'd be much better informed though I doubt they'd be any less prone to engaging in the usual rhetoric. Rhetoric after all sells papers and wins arguments.