Yeah. I think there is a lot more that goes on than people are led to believe so my expectation is that everything is recorded. There haven't been enough challenges and I don't really trust the Supreme Court to rule correctly anyways. Nonetheless it's good to challenge the government on this issue. I think constitutionally the bigger question than 'expectation of privacy' should be the 'expectation of non-surveillance'. That is more consistent with the intent of the 4th amendment that is explicit about being specific:
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Mass surveillance of any kind is contrary to both the enumerated powers of the government and the 4th amendment.
Yes, that's a good point about expecting 'non-surveillance.'
Also, consider how much data they already collect that they're not analyzing properly and/or not acting on. Governments that let people slip before an attack (whether it's due to incompetence or some other reason) shouldn't respond to the attack by asking their law-abiding citizens to give up more privacy. In the U.S. in particular, the post-attack time is often used to push govt. agendas. :/