The question is whether or not the massive disclosures have hurt America's ability to spy against foreign nations. You said well, it's unavoidable and it was a mere "inconvenience." Then you said that it's not really useful anyway.

The point is simple:

Everyone knew America was spying. The Snowden disclosures didn't change that. The only difference is, people have an idea of how they're spying. Compromising computers, siphoning data from under-sea cables, and grabbing phone data. Of those, the only one likely not known was the under-sea cables, and that one is bypassed with End-to-End encryption, something that should've been standard to begin with.

In hurting their ability to spy on American citizens, yes, they hurt their ability to spy on foreign nations as well. A small price to pay to help keep us free from surveillance by our own Government.

Then you said, well, making these programs useless was giving us a chance to vote. That's the height of double-talk. If I think that the government should be allowed to spy on foreign government, then what button do I press to make all the disclosures secret again? He took that choice away.

Current disclosures won't become secret again, this is true. However, by giving us a voice, we can decide how far we're willing to go, who we're willing to spy on, and how that information would be used against them. After-all, we are held responsible for what our government does because we're the ones who elected them. We have a responsibility, and indeed a right, to know what they're doing in our name.

If you "seize" a set of electronic data by putting it on another computer, then does this really constitute a seizure if no one looks at it?

Yes. If I go to your house and steal all your mail, it's still stolen, regardless if I know the content of the message. Or would you be ok with the Government taking your physical mail, so long as they "promise" not to look at it?

Because there is no expectation that the fact of the conversation never happened.

Here's a bit of a write-up that talks about just how much information can be gleamed from analyzing this "meta-data", even without knowing the exact contents of the phone conversation:

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/can-government-security-agencies-tell-phones-metadata/

If you think that level of detail shouldn't be protected... well, that's certainly your choice. Personally, I feel like if you're able to tell that much information from simply "meta-data", then it very well needs to be protected.

If cops can't search your car without a warrant, why the hell are people ok with the Government searching through your personal life without one?

You conclude with this statement that it's a dragnet seizure against all US citizens. No, it's not. You have no link to anything.

What would you call it then, out of curiosity?