What the article, and msot of the media, downplays is that this is only surveillance involving people who are suspected Al Qaeda operatives and the like. Moreover, even those are filtered down before they ever reach human eyes. If you look at it logically, there's not really much that can be abused.

There are a few problems with the article you link to (and/or his original post; I went through both and may comment on some things from the original). Most notably, he plays up HUMINT while downplaying COMINT/SIGINT/ELINT. While you won't find anybody remotely related to the intelligence community who thinks more human intelligence would be a bad idea, they don't just magically appear. HUMINT was cut 90% during the 1990's, and you can't rebuild it overnight. It takes more funding and more time to construct it effectively than it does to set up a program like the NSA one that is the subject of this controversy (which, incidently, I'd like to point out that it's not all that controversial -- you see lots of dems (primarily) complaining about it, but how many of them do you see calling for the program to be ceased?). Add to that the fact that Arabic and other languages involved are not a strong point, language-wise, for us, and that the college departments that teach it are incredibly hostile to using their graduates for intelligence purposes, and it only increases the difficulties.

He also mentions that the system can be thwarted, by talking in code or other means. Just because something can be thwarted doesn't mean it always will or that implementing it isn't a good idea. Locking your doors and windows won't prevent a burglar from entering your house, but does that make doing so an exercise in futility? More to the point, though, people do get sloppy. While they could talk in code, they often do not (many anecdotes exist in the intelligence community of people whose calls are being monitored saying "I really shouldn't be saying this over a[n unsecure] phone line" but then saying it anyways). As they monitor the media, I'm sure the sloppiness of the last couple months has been slim, but without somethign like that to remind them, you'd be surprised how careless people can be.

Oh, and in that article you added in a comment, I'd like to point out that it was an administrative worker. They don't have the same kind of security clearance and are not subjected to the same kind of background checks, among other things.