I hate it when people say "but our government is democratic" as an excuse to justify opposing limitations on its power. This is the same argument made by Prop 8 supporters in California, the same argument used by Oliver Wendell Holmes in justifying some of the worst civil rights abuses in early twentieth century. Fortunately, the "activist" courts of latter years have (for the most part) rejected this horrible logic (that majority has a right to put any of its ideas into law, irrespective of the rights of others).
Yes, our government is democratic: it is not, however, an absolute majoritarian government where any action that majority favours can and will be put into decree and acted upon. Democracy means "rule of the people", not "absolute rule by a simple majority/plurality".
Yes, we have elections, but we also have bi-cameral legislature, separation of powers, and a constitutions. We hold elections and let majority (at times a simple majority, in other cases -- like amending the constitution -- a supermajority) of our elected representatives decide which laws will pass. We don't do so because of an a priori commitment to majority, we do so because we haven't found other forms of government that respect civil liberties and other human rights to the same extent that a representative democracy would.
In other words, elected government is the means to an end (a society where the strongest individuals or the biggest gangs cannot violate others' rights to life, liberty, and property without repercussions), not an end in it of itself.
I realize this isn't an invalidation of your points: while I disagree with you (yes, intelligence agencies should be allowed to exist; no, they can not be allowed to snoop -- even accidentally -- on US citizens or permanent residents without due process), your point is salient and doesn't require making such a dangerous argument ("as long as our government is a functional democracy, we shouldn't worry about governments' intrusion on our rights to x" where x in this case is "privacy").