Pros And Cons Of The Fourth Amendment

"Internet privacy has recently been a hotly debated issue. If the government does not have probable cause or a warrant to monitor internet activity, then they are not permitted to do so. I base this off of the Fourth Amendment: “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.” Making this claim, I believe that the Patriot Act, the National Security Agency’s surveillance, and practices like these are illegal.
First of all, I think that the Patriot Act is illegal. This policy was enacted after the 9/11 attacks. As a result of this, our privacy was traded for security. Although this power may never be given back to us, it is important to look at the consequences of it. The motive to stop terrorism is a good one, but it is difficult to prevent this without violating the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act gave the government the power to access the American people’s emails, text messages, phone calls, and other devices in order to detect possible terrorists. The government and their

This has come up a lot with people like President Trump. If the government blocks people’s posts when they are sharing their political opinions, then they are violating that person’s First Amendment right. If the government has probable cause or a warrant to view someone’s social media, then they are lawfully allowed to do so. If they surveil internet activity until they find something to pin someone on, then they are not acting lawfully, no matter how disliked that person may be. The person who owns the social media account could block people if they are being rude, but the government does not have the authority to control what people