Completely ignoring privacy as a concept for a moment, a fair trade should be like for like, value for value.
I wonder how it is that the NSA hasn't already enabled that. One of my early concerns with government spying is that we'd up with some kind of NeoMcCarthyism on crack where someone in power would be able to discredit any inconvenient person or even identify and eliminate the career of a potential opponent before they grew to become a real threat. It's astonishing to me that with the wealth of data being collected already it hasn't happened. We've certainly had some very petty and morally bankrupt people in high positions who I'm sure would not have hesitated to abuse that information.
The risk is certainly real, and laws like EARN IT would only make it easier. Even today it seems like it'd be trivial for someone in power to plant a forbidden sequence of zeros and ones on somebodies mobile device at anytime and ruin them.
On paper, at least, the NSA technically isn't allowed to act on US soil or against US persons. The FBI would be the most likely vector for such a political police action, imho.
It seems pretty weird to assume it's not already done and in use by select people or groups in the NSA already. They literally have the ability, they're smart enough to pick their targets carefully, and there's plenty of evidence of their oversight being useless.
Obama campaigned on the promise to end domestic surveillance, and while politicians lie all the time to get elected, listening to him speak back then I believed him. He was a strong orator and was saying what I wanted to hear which admittedly makes my judgement there a bit suspect, but he also had a long history of speaking out against things like the patriot act, the illegal wiretapping of Americans, and national security letters.
Once he got into office however, instead of reining in the NSA he greatly expanded the NSA's ability to spy on the American public and he started defending them in speeches. I've often wondered if he was shown something highly classified that convinced him that violating every American's rights was genuinely needed, or if he was just threatened into compliance by showing him what information they'd collected on him and his family.
"Why is someone privileged to arrest me but I can't keep them locked up in my house?"
Of course, numerous ethical concerns surround the monopolization of violence, but for I want to focus on on the negotiation of rights for societal benefits.
Similarly, we often surrender our privacy with the promise of protection from criminal threats. However, this bargain becomes unjust and imbalanced when we look at it critically. The map is not the territory as the saying goes, and what are sold as effective measures against crime (on "the map") don't seem like they would be in reality ("the territory"). We risk relinquishing our privacy for nothing of value in return.
This, at least, is my perspective on the matter.