Not really.
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.
Notice the explicitness of that.
Now, even assuming that's being more literal than was intendend.. it doesn't approach the problem here - that of public images (and their storage/retrieval/use).
If you walk down the street, and have something illegal in your pocket, there must be that said probable cause to search you. If you walk down the street with something illegal in your hand - no such probable cause is needed (the sight is all that is needed).
Thereupon lies the big difference. The 4th is talking about the protection of private property. This issue is where are the limits of data collection, of someone in public.
(For instance, that's why the thermal imagers were tossed out on 4th amendment grounds - they were used to penetrate into the houses, without warrent)
Addison
