The real problem with this (as if the surveillance itself isn’t problematic enough) is that the case law on the fourth amendment largely centers on the idea of a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” A conversation on a busy street corner can be surveilled without a warrant because no reasonable person would expect they couldn’t be overheard. But as reasonable people come to understand, correctly, that all of their communications are under surveillance by multiple entities at all times, the “reasonable expectation” standard renders the government’s fourth amendment obligations almost entirely null. This encompasses corporate surveillance as well as advancing technology that can passively overcome traditional privacy measures like walls, curtains and physical distance.
I read a legal paper years ago arguing, for this reason, that the interpretation of the amendment should pivot to focus particularly on “the right of the people to be secure,” dropping the individual expectation of privacy standard in favor of a more holistic understanding of the impact on society entailed by the exercise of government intrusion into their affairs. A people who are subjected to constant surveillance, even if they reasonably expect it, can never be secure in any meaningful sense.
