Solid B. Let's be clear about something: I am in no way opposed to wiretapping. I am opposed to warrantless wiretapping, and by extension mass surveillance. Wiretapping with Judicial oversight is not a problem (ok, there are judges who hand out warrants like candy; it's less of a problem). The problem is circumventing Judicial oversight. The problem is power without legitimacy, responsibility, or transparency. The NSA operates with no transparency, labelling the most trival things "secret," and what little reporting which does happen is to a black kangaroo court. Power without legitimacy is what started this whole mess.
That sounds more like a "C" to me than a "B." If you acknowledge that wiretapping has its place, and that intelligence warfare has a place in modern geopolitics, but you're concerned about the lack of judicial process then it isn't so much the capabilities of the NSA as what they're doing with them. Put it this way: I was you in '97. By '99 a student of the clandestine services could have seen the whole of the Bush administration coming and the Obama response after that. And that's why I'm a (D).
Wouldn't that make your position a C? You're concerned about their shady activities and about their not being beholden to democratic forces. I think that's the intention behind C (although the phrasing's odd because it depends on A, and A seems to assert that the US Government works for the benefit of the people, which some of us would dispute).