On Privacy and the US Constitution.

I was speaking with someone a few days ago about government surveillance.
I had said how I recently read that the United States was rated as an Endemic Surveillance Society, when the gentleman mentioned that our founding fathers make no mention of privacy anywhere in the Constitution.
My reply was that they did not deem it necessary, because they did not fathom technologies such as surveillance cameras on every street corner.
But after poking around, and doing a bit of research I found a few things in the Bill of Rights.

Harry Browne says "The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution."
So, the federal government does not have the right to place surveillance devices anywhere.


Griswold v. Connecticut establishes that "...the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion." (Douglas)

It seems that the right to privacy is limited to affiliations with groups, and marriage/sexual relationships.

My opinions

Can one claim that surveillance devices such as wire taps, and email intercepts are equivalent to quartering of soldiers?
I suppose it depends on who authorized/administered the surveillance. Clearly, if the organization is funded by, reports to, employs agents of, or is affiliated with the federal government, then a very strong argument can be made about violation of the third amendment.


Is surveillance the same as a search?
In Katz V. United States, it was concluded that "The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
But, Katz V. United States referred to the monitoring of the activities of one person.

What about general surveillance of the population? The government's argument to justify this is to take a "if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't mind being monitored" mentality. This is considered by many a valid argument, but then I ask the question "so you're ok with the government putting cameras in your home?" and they usually change the subject, or dismiss my question as ridiculous.
Clearly, being monitored that closely is not an appealing thought; we can not allow the government to continue on this path of increased distrust in the people.