You ignore the stated conditions.<quoted text> I guess you don't read what you write! "Unreasonable search & seizures." Those are the key words. Now ask yourself, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks is PRISM reasonable? Is the govt looking through your phone records in attempts to prevent another 9/11? Did president Bush go through the necessary steps to enact the Patriot Act , therefore PRISM? Answer those questions &, you will quickly render your thought process as dumb!
"...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."
Anything that violates these conditions is unreasonable. The government just taking all private communications for a subjective course of action, as is the case with PRISM, is unreasonable.
A case in point, we actually had the 9/11 detailed plans in our possession before 9/11. But, some liberal judge decided that some alien here violating the terms of his visa and in custody had the right to keep the 9/11 plans private. However, on 9/12, there were no constitutional objections.
The clause "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" was obviously satisfied in that case.
So, there is nothing needed other than for judges to actually use the Constitution instead of obstructing an investigation just because a Republican is president. Had a Demcorat been president and requested to see Moussaoui's hard drive, that judge would have conceeded and had no objection to the search.
That's the problem.
The 4th Amendment is as close to perfection as humans can hope to achieve. A subjective general vilation of privacy is about as far away from perfect as you can get.