The amendment doesn't say "secure from government" or "secure from law enforcement." It just says "secure."
A person cannot sell themselves into slavery. Yet we allow the US government to endorse indentured servitude for immigrant labor, because corporations want indentured servitude.
Nor can a US citizen sign away workplace safety rights, legally. Yet we allow US construction companies to rampantly hire off-the-books undocumented labor so that they can freely ignore workplace safety rights, since no one will exist to make claims against them.
It would have been perfectly reasonable for a court to broadly ban surveillance of individuals by telecom companies back in the 1990s, based on the same principles that those courts have willfully violated on behalf of corporations in the other examples above.
I think you're making the opposite argument from what you hope to. You start off suggesting that the fourth amendment might apply here, but then point out that in every analogous case you can think of, the court has declined to stand up for people wronged by government acting through corporations. What makes you think they would do differently here? More to the point, why do you want the judicial branch to exercise legislative power in this, or any, case?
Let me clarify: I'm not suggesting that precedent and consistency demand one way or the other, I'm saying precedent and consistency only matter until it's a corporation with lots of political donations brought to bear, in which case precedent and consistency cease to matter.
Therefore, arguing precedent and consistency is relatively pointless. My point was an exercise in "anything goes, so make the law fit the argument." That's what Chevron would do.
In other words: What's the desired outcome? That corporations cannot wantonly create mass surveillance any more than the government can. So make the law fit the desired reality: extend the 4th amendment to say that privacy is a basic human right and people cannot contractually sign it away any more than they can contractually sign away themselves into forced labor. A clever judge could outlaw H1 visas in the same ruling and get 2 birds with 1 stone.
I'm sorry to nitpick, but a judge can't outlaw anything. Judges don't make laws. They interpret them, and I can't imagine a court willing to opine with any sort of honesty that the fourth amendment provides the sort of protection you're suggesting. I'm as angry about it as anyone, but I recognize that neither my opinion nor my anger is law, a sentiment which I hope for the courts to share.
It doesn't bind private persons, but it can certainly be argued that by the government making a purchase, the collection (even if retroactive) is pursuant to government direction through the incentive or interest nexus, and therefore the collection itself should be unconstitutional as soon as the government makes one purchase.
A person cannot sell themselves into slavery. Yet we allow the US government to endorse indentured servitude for immigrant labor, because corporations want indentured servitude.
Nor can a US citizen sign away workplace safety rights, legally. Yet we allow US construction companies to rampantly hire off-the-books undocumented labor so that they can freely ignore workplace safety rights, since no one will exist to make claims against them.
It would have been perfectly reasonable for a court to broadly ban surveillance of individuals by telecom companies back in the 1990s, based on the same principles that those courts have willfully violated on behalf of corporations in the other examples above.