I'm completely on board with this ruling; the 3rd party doctrine is complete garbage in the digital age, but I think it will have a much narrower effect.
I also don't think this ruling will have any effect on mass surveillance that is justified on a completely different legal basis.
Who's actually auditing these people and holding them accountable?
When was the last time someone lost their job because they issued too many warrants, or were too lax in issuing them?
Is a warrant more than just a rubber stamp?
"Supreme Court asks surveillance state to wear a fig leaf" might be a more accurate title.
But depending on the workload of these people, this can also mean a whole lot of back-log and result in hasty decision making.
Germany has a similar trend where judges are supposed to issue warrants for pretty much everything, like searching your house.
The problem in actual practice with this is that German judges are already overloaded with all kinds of work, which means they have on average around 3 minutes to process a search-warrant request, that time also includes writing the explanation for why it was denied if it should be denied.
3 minutes isn't a lot of time and getting it wrong can have pretty hefty consequences for the wrongly accused because these days it's often routine to confiscate all the IT hardware and any data media they find.
If you are somebody who's self-employed and working in IT, such a search could literally be the end of your business, because it will be years (and many lawyer fees) before you get your stuff back, even if it turns out you never did anything wrong.
I don't really see any real solution to this that doesn't involve either law enforcement toning down the number of requests for warrants or jurisdiction needing to expand its capacities, to allow judges more care in checking individual warrant requests.
It is a vicious cycle as the public has no way to actually find out about bad actions or negligent actions. Public officers in a bureaucracy have broad discretion to implement or ignore controls and are minimally accountable.
In the actual justice system, law enforcement, prosecution and judiciary all have different interests and all have formal process for interaction. For the most part, we know how many warrants are issued, because of court filings. In most cases, state/local prosecutors are elected officials directly subject to the consent of the people. In many cases judges are as well.
That's not to say that the justice system is wonderful and perfect. There's a balance between your privacy and the public interest to prevent crime. We also have things like civil forfeiture that are problematic. But for the most part, we don't have the police feeling empowered to randomly search our cars or homes, because of the legal protections re: search and seizure and the warrant process. That was happening with cellular phones, and this judgement will help eliminate the practice.
That's a good thing, as it creates a virtuous cycle. There is accountability and more transparency, vs an internal process where the whims of an official, or a failure to have adequate controls inevitably leads to problems.