Pacowy, you have WAY TOO MUCH faith in government.
I can assure you I have plenty of skepticism regarding the motives behind some of the actions of governments, businesses and other organizations. What I don't have is the paranoia that some of you seem to share in which the legitimate functions of government are ignored and facts are routinely cast aside in order to cast every governmental action in the worst conceivable light.
The Constitution defines many tasks that the federal government is supposed to perform. At the heart of the AP situation is a task "the government" actually performed well - preventing a bomb from being placed on a passenger aircraft. That's not faith; that's fact. Nobody has explained why it would be good for American citizens to provide terrorists with open access to information regarding the methods we use - successfully - to prevent them from killing us. To me it is obvious that confidentiality regarding such information is important, and that it is appropriate to punish people who jeopardize our safety by breaching that confidentiality.
If searches were conducted unlawfully, or if the information obtained was used improperly, I'll be among the first to be concerned. However, basically all of the complaints seem to relate to fears that are not rooted in things that are known to have happened here (e.g., listening in on conversations). Such fears undoubtedly are heartfelt by some, but until they can be connected by some kind of evidence to the AP situation they don't seem to be very relevant.