Congrats, you've got a religion.
If you want to get it amended, then by all means, make a case for why it should be amended.
In the meantime you wanted to know why mass surveillance isn’t an option. The answer “because it’s against the law” is a simple, good answer.
If you want to know why we decided as a nation to make that such a fundamental law that it is in our constitution, you could do worse than reading about what prompted the writing of the Bill of Rights.
I agree with a lot of the original reasoning.
But it’s just begging the question to say there’s immense benefit to them searching US citizens’ communications without a reason.
That’s the whole question.
Show me why we should change the constitution which guarantees us freedom from this sort of government oppression.
Some of this will include data of British citizens, but the thing is, we have a significant home-grown terrorism problem and serious organised criminal gang activity, happening within the country. If intelligence analysts need to look at, for example, which phone number contacted which other phone number on a specific date in the recent past, there's no other way to do this other than bulk collect all phone call metadata from the various telecom operators, and store it ready for searching.
The vast majority of that data will never be seen by human eyes, only indexed and searched by automated systems. All my phone calls and internet activity will be in there somewhere, I'm sure, but I don't consider that in itself to be government oppression. Only if it's used for oppressive purposes, would it become oppressive.
For this I need proof.
