Would it? The 1st is a prohibition on the rights of government, not private parties. Would the new amendment apply to the government, or to private sector, or to individuals? In any case, the 1st and the 28th? would continually be butting heads, since the 1st prohibits congress from passing laws that would enforce the 28th (and by extension, the states via the 14th). Would a newspaper be allowed to publish unflattering personal, privacy violating details? Would you be allowed to put up a political flyer alleging the same? I'm not sure an amendment is _the best solution_.

I suggest that the new amendment make it illegal for devices to track us.

Cameras, microphones, computers, robots, algorithms, etc would not be able track people. Those are in-animate objects, not people, and shouldn't have any rights, especially the right to intrude on people's privacy.

Individuals would not be able to leverage such devices for power, influence or other selfish raesons.

Only another person, a real human, can watch you in public. Even take notes on you. Like a doctor. Or the employees of a grocery store.

We already have laws that abridge the freedom of speech, so it's not absolute.

What's special about slander that we can have a say "you're not allowed to make defamatory false statements about people," but we couldn't have "you're not allowed to spy on people and sell information about them"?

Granted slander is a civil and not criminal matter, but if I could sue companies for sharing personal information about me that would still be something.