I think the keyword in (1) is "blanket". I'm not sure exactly what the intended definition is, and this should be clarified, but I'd guess the intent includes

I think the keyword in (1) is "blanket". I'm not sure exactly what the intended definition is, and this should be clarified, but I'd guess the intent includes surveillance without specific probable cause. If I'm right, then I think this might be achievable. It would not say that any surveillance could be challenged in a public proceeding, only indiscriminate surveillance. Production of a lawful court order would presumably be sufficient to inactivate this provision. Hmm, I suppose things could get sticky if there were debate over the lawfulness of the court order... nonetheless, I'm not prepared to give up on this yet.