Arguments Against The Fourth Amendment

Is it acceptable for the government to search if it has no reason to suspect a person has done something wrong? Today’s application of the Fourth Amendment would surprise those who drafted it and not just because they could not imagine technologies like the Internet and drones. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, policing consisted of citizen patrols or a loose collection of sheriffs and constables, who lacked the tools to maintain order as the police do today. That said, to determine if the right to privacy is a threat to our national security, I reviewed the Fourth Amendment, the government’s use of surveillance, and arguments for as well as against its use.
The Fourth Amendment provides that “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”. Its purpose to ensure each search or seizure be cleared in advance by a judge and that to get a warrant the government must show “probable cause”, a certain level of suspicion of criminal activity, to justify the search or seizure.
Nowadays, surveillance technology, like airport security, is used to deter crimes and detect
Alexander, then director of the National Security Agency (NSA), told Congress more than 50 potential terrorist attacks had been thwarted by two controversial programs tracking more than a billion phone calls and vast swaths of Internet data each day. Additionally, the attacks on would-be targets such as the New York Stock Exchange were prevented by consuming telephone and Internet information from millions of Americans since September 11, 2001. In testimony, General Alexander said, "In recent years, these programs, together with other intelligence, have protected the U.S and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe to include helping prevent the potential terrorist events over 50 times since