Have you seen the FBI files on people like MLK and Malcom X?

In fact this goes as far back as the 19th century if not more, with workers rights activists, human rights activists and others. And doesn't stop at collecting data.

You are correct to point those cases out, and I am aware of them. It was also outrageous to infiltrate the MLK movement. Not to downplay those cases, but there is a distinction between these cases with the FBI and the current case with London police: The London police is a local enforcement agency. When local police forces start actively hacking citizens there is a different kind of danger than when a federal agency does so, mainly because they have different enforcement interests and powers. When a local enforcement agency begins to spy and hack, that is a new level of harassment and violation of civil liberties.

As a technique, it goes waay back. There is some reason to believe even the Gunpowder Plot was engineered by authorities.

You've been there for a hell of a long time. For over 50 years your government has been subverting its own citizens movements which it finds unsavoury...

Hate to break it to you but you've been there for some time now.

My siblings in this thread need to learn about the reforms that were done post-Watergate. The rule of law governs everyone, especially law enforcement, in the USA. If you don't believe that, why do you think lawmakers bother with getting laws passed to allow surveillance in the first place?

You can't have it both ways. Either LEO follow the letter of the law and we're not in some 1984 scenario (because there are, in fact, substantial protections for privacy under the law), or they do not, and we're left with this mystery of why things like the USA PATRIOT Act exist, which now needs to be explained.

I'm confused by your post. We see that these police had extensive legal surveillance powers available to them, but chose not to use those and to break the various laws to illegally spy on these people.

Rule of law guarantees law will be applied, not that people rights and freedom will be upheld.

And it's not even much of a guarantee of that.