This would definitely be the level of security that falls under this statement from Snowden: Q: Is it possible to put security in place to protect against state surveillance? A: "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying. We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place.…
In the first stage everybody's data is run through, let's call it, pattern matching, to narrow down a very specific number of cases that have the highest likelihood of doing, having done or planning "something".
In the second stage, you might apply more resources to gather more data from your suspects, for example, by planting bugs.
But if you avoid triggering suspicion in the first stage, you don't have to worry about their capabilities, you're just not on their radar.
You might then argue that anyone encrypting their chats would then raise suspicion. Ultimately, such organisations have a finite limit of human resources to apply, certainly not enough to deal with any wide-spread usage.
If this were to happen, think from those organisations point of view. They need to stop it and can't scale to deal with every single case. You'll then find that encrypting your chat becomes against Google's T&C, because someone lent on them. And round it all goes.