Law enforcement also has a legitimate interest in being able to walk into my house, examine and copy my stuff, and make sure I'm not doing anything against the

Law enforcement also has a legitimate interest in being able to walk into my house, examine and copy my stuff, and make sure I'm not doing anything against the law. They also have a legitimate interest in stopping me on the street at random and demanding my identity, proof of citizenship, a blood sample (to make sure I'm not doing any drugs that are against the law), and a list of the people that I've talked to today, and about what subjects. Oh, that's not "legitimate"? I've seen serious proposals for those in the past few years, and not a few actual instances. All invoking the L-word. What do people mean by "legitimate" then? Mostly, I see it as begging the question, an attempt to redefine and color the argument. Of course their interests are "legitimate" -- whose are not? Does passing a law make something legitimate? What about an unconstitutional law? History has proven that capabilities like the ones proposed are always abused by power, and that compromised security systems grow more compromised over time. My head is not in the sand.