There is always a very reasonable difference of opinion about what a given constitutional provision actually means.
The reason amending the constitution is hard is that it's meant to act as a check on "people who are elected." Take a look at the amendments since the bill of rights.
11: Sovereign immunity for states
12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27: Changes to voting rights, elections and issues related to elected officials
13: Abolish slavery
14: Post civil war amendment, reduction in power of the states, new enforcement powers for federal government
16: Grants Congress the power to levy income tax
18: Prohibition (repealed by 21)
Congress hasn't voted to meaningfully reduce federal power in over 200 years.
Not always, but sure, often. That doesn't mean it is pointless to ever bother writing anything down. Just like the difficulty of passing an amendment is a check on the legislature's ability to grant themselves more power, the possibility of doing so is a check on the judiciary's ability to make laws mean whatever the current court wants them to mean.
But if your point is that privacy advocates have a better chance of success through the avenue of a broad interpretation of the fourth and fifth amendments than through a new amendment that puts a broader interpretation in the actual text, then it is a point well taken. They may well prefer to pass the opposite law, based on their historical action.
The reason amending the constitution is hard is that it's meant to act as a check on "people who are elected." Take a look at the amendments since the bill of rights.
11: Sovereign immunity for states
12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27: Changes to voting rights, elections and issues related to elected officials
13: Abolish slavery
14: Post civil war amendment, reduction in power of the states, new enforcement powers for federal government
16: Grants Congress the power to levy income tax
18: Prohibition (repealed by 21)
Congress hasn't voted to meaningfully reduce federal power in over 200 years.