From you: "Why wiretapping by government is such a concern?" "Wiretapping by itself does not restrict freedom of people" "Why worry about Big Brother watching me in the first place?"

>2) Government agency should be able to act on the intelligence it gathers. But if that act limits people's freedom without good reason - that agency should be punished for that (cut funding, fire abusing government employee, disassemble agency, send responsible agents to jail - depending on the severity of the violation).

And who's going to do all this monitoring and punishing? The current system is already abused and there's basically no punishment. Why do you suppose that would change in the face of broader wiretapping?

>If I'm the only watched, then I would probably lose more than gain. But if everyone is watched then I would probably gain more than lose.

This is rather doubtful, since you've lost all of your privacy and gained basically nothing. The likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack is extremely low. You're probably more likely to choke to death on a piece of chicken.

>I now see where the root of your mistake is. You are assuming, that by giving government more watching power government would become more powerful. But that does not have to be that way.

Yes, it does. The government does not readily give up its powers. History has demonstrated that government power almost invariably grows over time. There's no reason to believe that giving the government broader surveillance powers would limit its enforcement powers. Moreover, there's no reason to believe that these are exchangeable. A pound of surveillance does not equal 16 oz of enforcement.

>Would you prefer to take WatchingPower away from government and replace it with dumb ActingPower?

I'd prefer to see less of both.