The problem isn't that they aren't changing anything they couldn't do before, namely reading communications, post, telephones etc have always been accessible to the state. The problem is that technology has allowed two things:
a) Secure communications channels the government can't read
b) The state to monitor mass communication in a way even the Stasi couldn't using humans
The notion that you should be able to communicate in a way that your government can't monitor if necessary is a comparatively new one, and one you will find an awful lot of citizens don't agree with.
I don't know about this. Yes, in the past, if the government wanted to read your letters or listen to your phone calls, they usually could... if they already knew enough about what was going on.
Today, if you want to securely plan some crime, you set up PGP or whatever and use cryptography. In years past, you might have used a pay phone, or mailed a letter to a neighbor or relative. You could come up with a relatively simple code based on some book you both owned that would be effectively impossible to crack. There were lots of things you could do to avoid spying, if you wanted to.
Historically the government has not been able to automatically monitor everybody's communications if they wanted to, with just resource restrictions preventing it from happening en masse. Historically, the government has always been able to monitor communications only if the targets didn't take adequate precautions. What's changing is that the necessary precautions are simultaneously becoming much more difficult (planning your crimes on a pay phone won't save you anymore) and much easier (the crazy math needed to protect yourself is largely automated).
Really, though, I think the police should suck it up and work with it. Used to be if you wanted to tap someone's phone you'd actually go out and mess with their wires to add a physical tap. The same idea still works! Get a warrant and add a keylogger to their PC, or a microphone to their car, or whatever you need to get the info. Historically, spying on people always took legwork.
>> The problem is that technology has allowed two things: a) Secure communications channels the government can't read b) The state to monitor mass communication in a way even the Stasi couldn't using humans
I think the US mail is more secure, and it's been delivered by the government since way before computers existed. Sure they now scan the meta-data, but the content goes undisturbed except for specific interventions.
The notion that you should be able to communicate in a way that your government can't monitor if necessary is a comparatively new one, and one you will find an awful lot of citizens don't agree with.