Articles like this pop up all the time. The problem is that they never address (1) the legitimate need for surveillance;
From the article:
For the state to find criminals, it needs to be able to investigate specific crimes, or specific suspected planned crimes, under a court order. With the Internet, the power to tap phone conversations would naturally extend to the power to tap Internet connections. This power is easy to abuse for political reasons, but it is also necessary.
Which is why I said "articles like this" and not "this article." Your quote is correct. My comment was on the general scope of anti-surveillance writing.
From the article:
For the state to find criminals, it needs to be able to investigate specific crimes, or specific suspected planned crimes, under a court order. With the Internet, the power to tap phone conversations would naturally extend to the power to tap Internet connections. This power is easy to abuse for political reasons, but it is also necessary.