Out of curiosity, not being a US citizen, can I ask what was wrong with:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Seems like a pretty good basis for a framework for surveillance. Is there something about the 21st century that renders the 4th amendment unusable in framing legislation?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Seems like a pretty good basis for a framework for surveillance. Is there something about the 21st century that renders the 4th amendment unusable in framing legislation?