OK, I see how it is. As I previously addressed, there is a difference between what is right and what happens in practice. It seems that you are willing to accept as right and proper that the law is whatever it is determined to be by a group of corrupt judges deliberately misinterpreting perfectly clear law.
If the law was "perfectly clear," there would be no need for the judicial branch. It is quite arrogant to assume that your view is the proper view, and that anything else is "corrupt" or "misinterpretation." Your disagreement does not equal corruption on the other party's part. The word "reasonable" was put into the 4th amendment for a reason.
As for 'Godwin's law', you are buying into the traditional leftist tactic of ridiculing anything you cannot counter with reason. Similarities with Nazism are as they are. If the shoe fits, wear it. I, for one, will not ignore them just because someone has arbitrarily deemed such comparison not politically correct/unrefined/uncultured. If the similarity exists, it exists. Simple as that.
I'm not ridiculing anything, simply pointing out the hyperbole that inevitably makes its way into threads when politics is the subject. I was unaware that the Nazis started out with license plate readers and mail photography, but I'll be on the lookout for a Panzer division in my front yard from now on, I suppose.
I find it fairly humorous that one side always whines about the other side using ridicule instead of reason. This whining is usually followed by taunts of "libtard" and insistence that one side is evil and trying to "destory 'Murica."
Since you apparently don't get it, surveillance is the first step toward controlling a population. Since you find no problem with any of this, please offer a sane explanation of why the government would need to invest the effort of spying on most everyone, the overwhelming majority of which have no criminal inclination whatsoever. It has been my observation, both directly and in the context of history that people don't invest effort without a reason for doing so.
Unzipping my pants is also the first step towards rape, but that doesn't mean I'm not just getting undressed to take a shower or go to bed. There are legitimate purposes for data collection which, if done correctly, are perfectly legal and do not fall within the scope of search and seizure. I consider the photography of mail to be one of these. It's the outside of an envelope or package, NOT the contents. Much ado about nothing.