The requirements for warrants are written into law to protect innocent people from uncontrolled invasion of their privacy. If the FBI cannot present just cause to a judge for accessing someone's internet browsing history, then one must wonder why. If there is a crime or danger to the public suspected for just cause, then a warrant should be easy to obtain. If not, then no person or agency should be allowed to invade someone's privacy.
Although the right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is heavily implied, and the FBI's bid to get the Senate to allow access to internet browsing histories straddles a dangerous line in terms of privacy rights and could create a precarious precedent to determine just how much the FBI can get away with. The crossing of this line could be used to justify crossing other, more serious lines, and the Senate was right to reject it.
The FBI does not need to access to internet browsing history without a warrant. This would be a violation of the constitutional rights for Americans. Therefore, the Senate was right to deny the FBI the authority to access internet browsing history without a warrant. Granting the FBI this authority would open up other doors where the agency might raise more privacy concerns for Americans.
Law enforcement agencies are constantly trying to circumvent any limitations or restrictions on their activities. Any protections we as Americans enjoy. This is an ongoing battle to avoid any sort of oversight or limits on their power. With each new outrage, they attempt to break down the rules, leaving themselves with unfettered power to probe into the lives of all Americans. We had GPS tracking shoved down our throats on cell phones with a promise that it would ONLY be used for 911 calls, not for tracking people....... at least not without warrants....... guess what! Warrants are a thing of the past, and law enforcement has only to call your cellular provider, and they roll over. Browser histories, what a gold mine.