The technology is already here, and there would also be clear upsides, especially for private citizens trying to protect themselves, but the end result is that we end up in a surveillance state. Arguably, we may already be in one.
Every country has has this ability for much longer.
The problem with this statement is it's historically inaccurate. Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic. (Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.)
The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.
Not at all. It's the 4th Amendment. It's particularly clear on this point. Perhaps "historically inaccurate" is not the phrase you meant to use. You might also notice that the CIA itself believes these activities were and are illegal. See "Project HTLINGUAL."
> Cops have been pilfering through suspects' things with no reason since the dawn of our republic.
They get warrants first or they are, in fact, committing a crime. It is, admittedly, a difficult crime to prosecute, but further evidence against your phrasing is that this is in fact a crime that does get charged.
> Landowners, on the other hand, could stand their ground.
Owning land is not at all a distinction. "Persons, Houses, Papers and Effects" are. That land is not a part of this enumerated list is actually a particular point in the enforcement of this law and creates a "plainly visible" standard that is applied by courts.
> The better argument is we have advanced enough that this should be illegal.
It's illegal. Full stop. Vagaries of enforcement are not material to this point.
Mapp v Ohio is one of the most landmark cases in 4th amendment law and the ruling came down in 1961. So when someone tells you that your maximalist interpretation isn’t historically accurate, they aren’t harkening back to colonial era rules.
If the lawmakers openly demonize and marginalise the unprivileged (minorities, dissenters, protestors), then it is safe to assume that it is already the case, just unevenly applied, so that the majority would continue to support the State as it increasingly grows restless with the fringe even more.