Try to mentally write the amendment, then attack it like a security researcher/lawyer would.
It's really hard to write such a provision without an "unless it's for a reasonable use" clause large enough to drive a truck through, and you can't just leave that one off either.
It's not a bad exercise to try, though.
(I fear opening the amendment process at this point, to be honest. I'd give good odds Amendment 28, no matter what it is, will be longer than the entire rest of the Constitution, with the way legislation has gone lately.)
See, the thing is, and why I wish we had more like the original Bill of Rights, was they weren't legalese. They were intentionally broad constructs that the courts could interpret to the modern day. I want a Constitutionally-protected "right to privacy", so that courts can determine how x, y, or z weighs against that right.
> See, the thing is, and why I wish we had more like the original Bill of Rights, was they weren't legalese.
Yes, they were; they may not seem that way because in many cases they have shaped common usage and understanding of terms beyond the legal space, but they absolutely leveraged existing specialized legal terms of art.
ocdtrekkie's response is a pretty good response to your post, too. When you write in broad statements of principle, even someone from the late 18th isn't completely lost. It wasn't at all news to them that invasions of privacy represented power over the one being invaded, and given that they were already concerned with the degree of privacy invasion possible in the 18th century, it's not like there's any chance they would suddenly go "Oh, well, a little primitive 18th-century invasion by a government is an unacceptable assertion of power over people, but when you can do it at a large scale with technological precision I never dreamed of, oh, that's totally OK."
Or is the suggestion that because 18th century white people would consider the modern day Facebook an atrocity, it is incumbent upon us to submit to their privacy invasions because otherwise we're like privileging old dead white people or something, which we are far too sophisticated for in this here 21st century?
It's really hard to write such a provision without an "unless it's for a reasonable use" clause large enough to drive a truck through, and you can't just leave that one off either.
It's not a bad exercise to try, though.
(I fear opening the amendment process at this point, to be honest. I'd give good odds Amendment 28, no matter what it is, will be longer than the entire rest of the Constitution, with the way legislation has gone lately.)