The part about "prevent[ing] citizens from having to bear the capital costs associated with the government's own decisions" is also interesting.
It could mean that if the Feds want to make their own jobs easier by trespassing on the private property (laptops, phones, etc.) of citizens, they'll have to get the owner's permission first.
Now that we've successfully reinterpreted the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Amendments to support privacy, why not the 1st Amendment? Would you like to join the Church of Privacy and accept Ed Snowden as your Lord and Savior? According to our Holy Book, in order to reach salvation, you must vigorously resist the Devil's attempts to spy on your life. Oh, and the 5th already gives you the right to refuse to divulge encryption keys, at least on some interpretations.
It could mean that if the Feds want to make their own jobs easier by trespassing on the private property (laptops, phones, etc.) of citizens, they'll have to get the owner's permission first.
Now that we've successfully reinterpreted the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Amendments to support privacy, why not the 1st Amendment? Would you like to join the Church of Privacy and accept Ed Snowden as your Lord and Savior? According to our Holy Book, in order to reach salvation, you must vigorously resist the Devil's attempts to spy on your life. Oh, and the 5th already gives you the right to refuse to divulge encryption keys, at least on some interpretations.