The Fourth Amendment guarantees my house, papers, and effects, will be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. The argument has been made that the government has not violated the Fourth Amendment by "merely" recording a conversation until someone has listened to it. Yet that conversation is private, it is something that belongs to the two people in the conversation, with the communications services paid for by one of them. Taking possession of the contents IS a taking of property every bit as real as entering my home, rifling my file cabinets, and making copies of everything, whether anybody has read them or not.
Hence the mere EXISTENCE of an infrastructure capable of storing every conversation, email, and bank transaction IS a systematic violation of law. The matter of law can simply be ignored, but physical access to the data cannot.
I agree.