I do not believe privacy is an inherent right. In fact, we as social animals have chosen to live amongst each other at the expense of privacy. The more we chose to live in a society, the more privacy we voluntarily give up. Living together means we value each others company more then privacy.
I also agree with Peter above. It is not the loss of privacy that we fear most, but what evil the government will do with the knowledge. Government is not restricted from doing evil because of privacy rights. Government is limited because of the dilution of power in a free society. That is why comparisons with Cardinal Richelieu, Saddam Hussein and others are inappropriate. Our leaders are able to do what they do because people follow their orders. Our culture and educational system does not breed automatons that follow blindly. Ask any Government manager if their employees would follow whatever they ordered them to do. Our greatest check and balance is the thousands of professionals who actually carry out the business of the government and military. As long as we strive for the most educated, diverse and independent government workforce on Earth, your precious privacy will be safe because the people actually entrusted with it, could not care less about your lovemaking, bathroom habits and singing in the shower. We are not free because Bush and Heyden allow us to be. Although they may be some of the most powerful men on earth, they're not as powerful as you think. We are free because by and large your government is run day to day by your neighbors and countrymen who love their country as much as you do. As long as we attract that kind of person to our government and military, we will continue to be free, in spite of the politicians we allow to give speeches.
If you mean a monopoly that purports to protect your property by expropriating your property in the first place (taxes) - then this obvious contradiction, that I think any rational human can see (unless severely philosophically corrupted by parents or teachers) will lead one to say NO, this will not result in a stable and secure society.
This essay will consider evil in its many guises in this tragedy.
There are anthropological and psychological studies from the 50's and 60's that document very carefully a phenomenon called "observer effect". Depending upon the community or individual being observed, the corruption of healthy behavior ranged from subtle to extreme and perverted. This can of worms being opened by a relatively benign form of surveillance (compared with, say, GPS locators mounted to our cars or cameras in our bedrooms) is predictably foul; but none of us can predict the direction that reactive behavior trends will go. Observer effect could lead to mass depression or mass violence or mass obscenities just as likely as it could lead to mass protest. This is reckless social engineering, not just surveillance or data mining. Maybe the way to fight it is lawsuits based on an obviously depraved indifference to a predictable and previously documented outcome, corrupted behavior.