Sorry to say jgoins, but I bet at some point something could be said by you, taken completely out of context and then turned against you, so don't kid yourself.

Since we're well aware of your stance on minorities, how about if a conversation with a friend were used in a case against you regarding racism or civil rights violations, when no one was ever even harmed, or any actual illegal act perpetrated by you or the other party in the conversation. Or .... how about after that conversation, the other party DOES perpetrate some act, perhaps even unbeknownst to you, but since the topic was discussed in a monitored conversation you're now percieved as an accomplice to that act ?

The part that really bothers me about this whole concept is that it's in direct violation of our constitutional rights.

Secondly, how often is it that manipulation of power tends to be used in "other" ways (like I mentioned above) once the baseline is considered accepted ?

I'm against anything in direct violation of our constitutional rights, no matter by whom or for what purpose.

Errosion is errosion no matter what pespective it's viewed from.