First of all, you stated the same thing twice in separate comments.
Secondly, I wasn't making an argument, I was describing how people at the time would think about claims like "the NSA records every conversation".
There are flaws in the argument (well, duh) but that's not even the point. The full extent of NSA surveillance was so absurdly unthinkable that people would go out of their way to rationalize anything as long as it was less preposterous than claiming the NSA literally taps, records and stores all Internet traffic.
* The NSA doesn't spy on people, that's absurd
* The NSA doesn't spy on people outside the US, that's absurd
* The NSA doesn't spy on innocent, law-abiding people, that's absurd
* The NSA doesn't spy on me, that's absurd
* The NSA doesn't spy on me as long as I don't act suspiciously, that's absurd
* The NSA doesn't spy on me all the time, that's absurd
* The NSA doesn't record everything I do, that's absurd
* The NSA doesn't store information it collects about me, that's absurd
* The NSA doesn't store all information it can collect about me, that's absurd
etc etc
Also, the way I recall it, at the time the conspiracy theory was (likely due to the popularity of the X-Files at the time) "the FBI is reading our IRC chatlogs", which is a far cry from "the NSA is rerouting all internet traffic", which is what we now know to be true. Not only does it seem less nefarious (law enforcement vs literally spies) but the scope was far more plausible (the network operators might cooperate with law enforcement).
Heck, even Guantanamo and drone strike assassinations seemed implausible back then.
How did you think they were listening for the trigger words?