The government isn't a private citizen and is precluded from doing things, like keeping dossiers on non-suspects. But apparently the courts, which only respond to complaints by directly effected parties (which the litmus test for is preposterous), have made it ok to circumvent the spirit of the constitution by outsourcing surveillance. I would argue that if the government is precluded from doing something, of course they would still be precluded from doing the same action by proxy. We are, and so should they be.

And your second question, I would assume you would end up in jail for illegally monitoring government security employees.