Blagojevich case and wiretapping privacy

By now, we've all hopefully heard about the recent scandal with democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. Last i heard he has not been indicted yet, but he has at least been charged with a complaint from an FBI affidavit. It looks like the case against him is pretty strong and a sentence is soon to come, making the scandal even bigger. "Blago" is accussed of attempting to "sell" the Senate seat that will be left vacant when Barack Obama takes office in January. As the governor he has the power to appoint someone to replace the seat. In hearings from phone conversations he talks about sums of money of up to a million dollars "assigning" a value to the selection. Very few would argue that, if proven guilty, he should pay a big price for his wrongdoing; but the method used to gather this suspicions is still under scrutiny.
Leaving aside the fact that in this particular case political interests play a huge part, privacy groups have been against this practice for a long time, here is the main argument:
"Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded, and all conversations between them upon any subject, and although proper, confidential, and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of one man's telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person whom he may call, or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping."
On the other side of the dabate, the argument seems to be that if no illegal activity is done, there is nothing to fear about:
"Personally, if the Feds wiretapped my phone, I would not have any problems with it because I don't engage in illegal activity. In fact, after some time, they would stop tapping me because they wouldn't get any useful information from me" says a comment in a blog.
As students of Media Law and Privacy and freedom of speech, we observe another case in which both arguments collide again. The law is stablished and must be respected, even when many might not agree with it.
As we have learned if it wasn't the government making an effort to wiretapp someones phone to listen to private conversations, we could easily determine an invation of privacy. But special circumstances, which sometimes take the form of National Security, and the fact that is public servants or officials using this method is the argument that supports the right in these cases. The debate is open, but something is for sure, just like Blagojevich was supposed to watch for the public's interests and didn't, so could a government official who missuses these practices. The implications could be huge. As in most cases, the system does not cause the damage, but rather the people who exploit it do.
PS: dont know if it's necessary, but here are some links to the case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/politics/10Illinois.html?_r=1
or
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28195524/