Lets call this "good people vs bad people" trope what it is. The good people are us & people who agree with us, while the bad people are anyone who disagrees with us strongly enough to take some sort of retaliatory action. In war, they are called the enemy because we know specifically who they are. When the enemy cannot be identified as the leadership of a nation state, we have to call them bad people & their troops are known as terrorists. When Government starts viewing anyone who does not share their views as a bad person, regardless of their actual actions, we see protesters labelled as terrorists & people standing up for civil rights as sympathisers.
Governments world wide now seem paranoid that their citizens believe they can communicate without being monitored. Its not so much that they want to know, but rather that they want YOU to know they are watching & thereby control what you say & think so citizens will be reluctant to rise up. We are as much a victim of the false War on Terror, as those being bombed & killed by drones around the world to extend the empire.
The bigger picture is Governments off all persuasions seeking to reign in the internet as a means for organising dissent. This is not necessarily a co ordinated undertaking, but more a natural systemic reaction to dissent using the most effective means of communication the world has ever known. The causes of dissent are now manyfold, as the world approaches massive levels of instability, primamily as a result of resource competition & the comming effects of climate change.
How do you tell what the people in charge actually want? Simply by looking at what both "parties" agree on. This simply highlights that there is nobreal choice, with the only differences being things that don't matter to those actually running things, but we all seem convinced are the real issues.
The objective js to shut down the means of dissent, prior to the shitstorm that is about to hit.
Just as the invasion of Iraq was about oil & cybersecurity is about information control, airport security is another component of social control that is being slowly ramped up. Governments (if you can still call them that) know these will be necessary to control the coming revolt arising from climate change, peak oil & the ability of citizens to organise using the internet.
So what is the difference between this score & Facebook Likes? The only difference in the west is that it takes a little longer & you need a few PR firms or the odd 911 to get the Government where they want to be.
If one accepts the premise that the purpose of the Program is not public education, but rather being seen to be reasonable & righteous (as a precurser to unreasonable & litigious), then it all makes sense. It's like a violent husband saying "you made me do this".
We should not be surprised at Government's response to this issue, as it's essentially the way that elected officials operate when the system becomes so broken that it no longer represents the wishes of those who elected them.
Their broad definition of Terrorism is the tool they will use to discourage other forms of protest, particularly the use of the Internet to communicate resistance against the coming Global Corporate takeover of Government.