If you take a glance at the development of Constitutional law you realize the document itself is largely meaningless. What matters is the progression of SCOTUS cases that interpret a simple archaic document in order to apply it to a massive, complex government.
It's quite easy for a Supreme Court to rationalize the disposal of civil liberties. Look at air travel. The argument is that people are consenting to the invasive searches because they are choosing to fly; never mind that flying is basically the only reasonable way of getting across this giant country. They can say the same thing about the internet. "You are consenting to use the option of internet based communication. If you want privacy, speak in person."
You don't even need to pick modern things like air travel.
The US consitution & bill of rights were fine with the slavery, racial segration, denying women the vote, denying men without property the right to vote, legal sexism, etc.
You're right that it's all about how it was interpreted.
It's quite easy for a Supreme Court to rationalize the disposal of civil liberties. Look at air travel. The argument is that people are consenting to the invasive searches because they are choosing to fly; never mind that flying is basically the only reasonable way of getting across this giant country. They can say the same thing about the internet. "You are consenting to use the option of internet based communication. If you want privacy, speak in person."