You have presented some excellent points.
However, I would submit that protecting the country from terrorists is one of the things the individual cannot do for himself.
Again, I think we agree on the objective....I think where people disagree is on the "reasonableness" of the provisions of the Patriot Act for intrusion in people's private lives. I think the question in most people's minds is "Is there sufficient ie reasonable justification for this level of intrusion?" I think most people would agree there are some instances where it is reasonable to limit the absolute right of privacy. Where reasonable people disagree is on what those instances are. That is why we are having this discussion on whether or not the Patriot Act will pass a constitutional challenge.
Reasonable is a subjective word. The U.S. Constitution does not have any provisions for subjective terms. The only place where one can find where the Founding Fathers thought "reasonable" might fit is in the 10th Amendment which granted the sovereign STATES the right to determine what those instances might be. "Reasonable" is not granted to the federal government.
The Patriot Act cannot pass a strict constitutional test. It was passed AFTER the name was changed (formerly the Anti-Terrorism Act) when patriots were outraged. So it was given a gimmicky acronyn ("PATRIOT") for a name and passed. After all, since 9-11, who wouldn't be for a bill with the name PATRIOT in it?