The Constitution is pretty clear that "unreasonable searches" cannot be performed "without probable cause". We can deduce the government is intercepting every electronic communication through various leaks and investigations. I think any average American would agree that these searches are unreasonable and lack probable cause. Certainly there would have been no American independence if King George had this technology.
As for personal harm, the mere knowledge that the government is monitoring everyone's communications creates a chilling effect on the free flow of knowledge and ideas. Does anyone really want to associate themselves with political movements like Occupy Wall Street, even if they identify with their values, when they know the government is actively infiltrating and monitoring them? Has know one suffered mental anguish over expresing an opinion that may put them on a political watch list?
These so-called conservative judges, who are protecting the use of these tools of tyranny that Stalin and Hitler would have salivated over, will be remembered in history for their inaction to combat totalitarianism is America.
As illegal as breaking and entering into someone's home and stealing photos from a bedroom safe.
This isn't illegal when the government does it in mass.
Patents have always been a contract between innovators and society to promote the progress of the arts and sciences, emphasis on progress. I personally agree with the St. Louis Fed that the times have changed and patents have become more of a hindrance than an incentive for progress. Back when America first established the patent system as a part of its experimental government the economy was almost totally based on agriculture. Scientific progress was difficult as there was only a small minority of the population who had access to higher education, scientists worked in practical isolation due to communications delays and access to publications, and they also had restricted access to raw materials needed for experimentation. Contrast that with today where we live in the information age and a global economy consisting of hundreds of millions of scientist and engineers who have the entire world's knowledge at their fingertips. In the near future 3D printing technologies will change the course of manufacturing and may allow anyone to manifest pre-rendered designs into the corporeal world. With this true paradigm shift in scientific development and manufacturing can it be said with certainty that government granted and enforced monopoly on ideas that by all accounts are arbitrarily defined promote progress instead of stifle it?
Let's also not forget about the chilling effect patents have on scientific research. A notable example of this is breast cancer research where a company patented the key genes related to breast cancer causing other researches to become concerned with legal liability.
I also disagree that without patents there will be no innovation. As Plato wrote two thousand years ago, necessity is the mother of all invention. Innovation brings competitive advantage and that will always be rewarded by the markets.
One may argue that patents are still needed for investment intensive research like drug manufacturing. However, today most pharmaceutical companies spend only a small percentage of their budget on R&D. If patents were abolished then an alternative means to fund expensive research would be to bolster the existing public research grants that already fund research in areas that promote aggregate societal benefit or fund X-Prize type contests.