Yes and I believe it is more morally correct to have a fundamental belief that innocent people shouldn't have their rights violated to achieve some larger social goal. The ends don't justify the means, and fundamental human rights shouldn't be voidable by majority vote.
That is not all that is going on here and I suspect you know it. Rights are often in conflict. Insisting that a particular right you are personally fixated on trump all others is not a moral stance. It's narcissism dressed up in a noble cloak.
Rights are NOT often in conflict. Genuine rights are private, and do not overlap with others' equal rights.
What you are describing as a right: the ability to subject others to warrantless mass-surveillance, violates the core liberal principle of Western culture, namely the rights to privacy and the presumption of innocence.
And for good reason. There is no evidence at all that abrogating these core rights makes people safer, either from threats in general, or specifically from crime.
