You said that government monitoring would make you safer, and that privacy was a barrier to the free flow of information. If you don't favour unhindered powers of surveillance, where are you drawing the line, and why should a line be drawn?
Government monitoring might make me safer (if done right).
I would prefer to see a pitch from a government agency with the clear promise of delivery something tangible (lowering agency spending, lowering fraud, improving safety, lowering the rate of false arrests) in exchange for more surveillance.
Then evaluate the pitch and decide.
Then evaluate agency performance in new environment, and decide whether to keep surveillance power (if it was worth it) or take it back (if resulting abuse did not worth the positive outcome) or even dissolving the agency (if it was pure lie).
That can be done incrementally, until increasing surveillance stops producing worthwhile benefits.
It's a straw man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man