>> Surely some details should have surprised people.
> Of course.
Contradiction. Either it should have surprised people or not. Now what?

(a) seems also a contradiction for me. In the one hand, your're saying they spy on people and are really good at it and in the other hand you say, you're surprised they were only collecting metadata. Is your definition of spying, that no content is collected?
However the claim that the NSA is only collecting metadata is wrong. The PRISM program is one example that shows that not only metadata are affected. The latest non-Snowden revelations concerning French presidents clearly shows it's not only about collecting metadata. This is a direct disproof about your claim assuming that you are not deny the validity of the revelations. Are you denying the validity?

Regarding to (b): Isn't the NSA a foreign intelligence agency? So you assumed although it's a foreign intelligence agency that it is collecting domestic data+metadata?

What's the surprising part of (c)?

> E.g. there's far less concern about the fact that targeted drone strikes and special forces assassinations (which clearly cause people harm) seem to occur with far less oversight.

Sorry, don't get it.

> Don't assume I agree with all your assertions.
So with some assertions do you agree?

> You certainly haven't proven anything. E.g. even if we accept that NSA spying on foreign leaders was harmful to them, how does it make the NSA evil? I simply argue that the NSA is basically well-intentioned.

You can't prove the intention of someone. But you can prove what someone does or did. I showed you that the NSA is not only involved in spying, but also involved in PSYOPS, which try to influence the public opinion. Again: One agency decides to spread misinformation to destroy reputation of people or to manipulate online discourse. Are such actions covered by your understanding of freedom and democracy?

> E.g. even if we accept that NSA spying on foreign leaders was harmful to them, how does it make the NSA evil?

I argued before it is affecting the integrity of the state. In my opinion (I'm no lawyer) it also violate the right of sovereignty of state. Breaking rights is bad. I think it's better to not using religious categories like good and evil, but rather of good or bad.
Just because a person is a state leader, doesn't mean she has no right to freedom, which legitimates to surveil her.
But this is no reason, that state leaders have to expect spying from other countries.

Since I'm not talking about spying on foreign leaders, but spying on nearly everyone it is bad because it destroy fundamental freedom and democratic rights of people.
If you're not convinced of freedom and democracy there is no reason to discuss for you. In this case it would be well-intentioned for you if you're country is illegally attacking another country, just because you're country is telling you it is a defensive measure and in the interest of the country.

Just for the case, that you understand me wrong: Believing in freedom and democracy does not mean inevitably that you do not know there are rogues out there who give a fuck about laws, freedom and democracy.

> I simply argue that the NSA is basically well-intentioned.
What do you mean by "basically"? Are there cases where the NSA is not well-intentioned for you?

> Um, they spy on people. And they're really, really good at it. If you think we shouldn't spy on people then that's fascinating, but don't pretend you don't understand this simple point.

Firstly, I don't know what your problem is on perceiving that there are other operations, which haven not something to do with spying such as PSYOPS. Or are PSYOPS also spy-operations for you?
Secondly, spying is not an answer to the question. Spying is a mean. What's the end of this mean? Fighting terrorists?

> And they're really, really good at it.
At least they were not good at preventing leaks.

> If you think we shouldn't spy on people then that's fascinating, but don't pretend you don't understand this simple point.
Great that you're fascinated and you know the truth of a simple point. Tell me more about your "simple point".

Maybe I am all wrong. Maybe the NSA is an exceptional secret-service, which differs from the SIGINT-departments of services like the Stasi, Mossad or Sowjet/Russian agencies, which weren't/aren't well-intentioned.
The revelations showed me the opposite.
Maybe you can explain why you are convinced that the NSA is well-intentioned and why it's not naive to believe it? I'm open for knowledge.