Spying on the citizens isn't to make the citizens safer. To the contrary it is to ensure the citizens are not up to anything that will thwart the will of the government.
Either we have a 4th amendment or we don't. The 4th amendment says:
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.It doesn't have the addendum "unless the government thinks it's better to spy on the people." It is an absolute determined by awrrant and probably cause, not fishing expeditions.
Cops driving down the road don't need a warrant to report what they see. You, as a citizen, don't need to go to court to get a warrant to report what you see to a magistrate.
Eavesdropping is different.
There are other countries who work this differently but none of them have yet figured out how to get around the problem that you see what you see and you hear what you hear, whether you are a private citizen or a cop.
If you want everybody to get a warrant before they say anything about what they see or hear what you'll have is an all encompassing brutal tyranny.