scuwp: I am in the camp that I am willing to lose a bit of privacy for the sake of security. If they want to listen to my boring family conversations, go for it.
Hell, no. This is (in my opinion) a foolish and dangerous position to take.
It implies a complete trust in government and governmental organisations. Would you trust 100% of police officers and politicians? You might be able to trust 95% of them, or 98% of them, but 100%? And if you can trust 98% of the, can you trust those 98% to have good oversight of the other 2%? History is littered with examples of state abuse of power that is covered up and exposed later on (and sometimes even apologies for years down the track).
I should not have to justify my private affairs being private to anybody, including any government.
If there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, there are established procedures for gaining warrants for surveillance against specific named people to gather further evidence of their wrongdoing. That is sufficient.