The Case for Mass Surveillance

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/the_nsa_s_phone_call_database_a_defense_of_mass_surveillance.single.html

Going off of our viewing of the film last week, this article talks about the general steps of mass data collection and the reason for why the government collects so much data as opposed to only asking phone companies to turn over relevant info once a case comes up. Data collection is broad in scope without the need for reasonable suspicion or approval, and only a fraction of this data is ever reviewed. Why apply the usual criteria for surveillance at the review stage instead of the collection stage? Very simply, phone companies don't hold on to all that data (it's not profitable or cost efficient), so the government ends up shouldering the storage burden in an effort to lose no possible clues for whatever may pop up in future years.
The article goes on to say that this is fine but procedures are needed to prevent abuse, just as full-body airport scanners preserve privacy by giving the scanned picture and name/face to separate TSA officers. Perhaps the government already has such procedures, but the problem is, nothing is publicly known about it.

Do you think public knowledge of restrictive procedures in data collection should be a given, or do you think there's a possibility that it may entail a vulnerability in the collection/review system?