No, it would not be as long as there was a court order and our judges have the time and sense of gravity to give each and every court order sufficient scrutiny to determine whether it has merit or is merely a fishing expedition. Wiretaps should also only begin once a warrant has been approved by a judge, any wiretap in bulk so you can retroactively get phone records and conversations from the date before the warrant was issued is unconstitutional. If the person in question kept their own records, the warrant can apply to those records, but to keep a tab on every American, innocent or otherwise, is disturbing.
Personally, I would love to see a two-factor commit with all warrants. All warrants should require two judges to sign off on them, one federal judge and one state judge where the wiretap will be carried out.
The other thing I would like to see is some sort of "cost" that the agencies must bear to be able to request warrants. It should cost each agency money to apply for warrants and they should have a limited budget each year to spend on warrant applications. At the end of each year, to apply for increases in this budget, they should present an equal number of both cases which they would have liked to pursue warrants on someone, but it was deemed outside the budget and cases where they pursued a warrant and got one, but the person turned out to be innocent. Such a policy applies market forces to limit rampant wiretapping and phishing expeditions. Instead they will adjust to only use their warrants on those people who actually should be wiretapped. This would also help prevent unilateral action by a single agent or team, without appealing to another independent group with power of the purse over warrant applications. Individual agents and teams would try to get warrants for all their suspects, but the group with power of the purse has the responsibility to dole out warrant applications according to merit so that the agency doesn't run out of them before year's end.