>"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." //
This does not put a geographic limit, so all citizens (I think "the people" here is clearly a reference in context to citizens) should be excluded from having their data seized without warrant. That's got to be hard with USA citizens appearing in most populations and internet data not being clearly from any particular citizen or other person [they'll need an "isCitizen" bit so that all data packets from USA citizens can be dropped before inspection!].
Moreover the 14th Amendment to the USA Constitution appears to extend protections to all "persons", viz:
>"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." //
If the internet is under USA jurisdiction then persons there should be extended the "equal protection of the laws". One such law being that you need a warrant to search their "papers, and effects" [which clearly purposes to protect private correspondences].
Not sure how it works in the USA - to bypass this Federal operations could be considered to be outwith the jurisdiction of any state?? That would seem to require the people involved to not be citizens of the USA though, as they would then fall under the requirements for their State of residence to ensure the protection of the laws extends to people [everywhere].
"People" in the 5th Amendment means "people", not citizens; 5th Amendment protections are not limited to citizens.
But note that it has no explicit warrant requirement; just a reasonableness requirement and a limit on when warrants shall issue. It's read as implicitly requiring warrants in most cases for reasonableness, but there are plenty of exceptions.
For many (all?) situations the federal government considers itself the district of columbia which is not a state and is a federal territory. The Fed is thus not a state but a supra-state entity that operates outside what states would consider acceptable. They routinely trample individual and states rights. It is ironic considering the history of why the U.S. was founded that we have given in to a domestic version of the same tyranny.
