alt Hacker NewsAnd why should we defer to ancient principles in a case regarding cell phone metadata that can be used in innumerable ways to violate privacy? To me it seems obvious that if the 4th Amendment were written today by anyone other than cops, this exact case would have been covered.
I doubt it. According to the 1960s courts, they did because this “ancient concept” was essentially common sense. If you tell someone something, you shouldn’t expect a constitutional right to it remaining a secret. If I told someone I robbed a bank and my confidant calls the police, why shouldn’t they use this information? Should the courts respect mafia NDAs?
The banking aspects didn’t show up until the mid 70s. Personally, I think technology changed society in ways the constitution isn’t prepared for. In 1790 a banker was a dude you worked with in a local institution. In 1975 half of California was a Bank of America customer.
The constitution didn’t anticipate this and you’d need an amendment to create some sort of agent or attorney like privilege. It’s a fairly nuanced issue — from the humans point of view, an email is like a letter, and Google Drive is like a file cabinet. But the courts are forced to think about the where the logical artifact (ie the folder) is located. A USB drive in a drawer is protected, but the file in Google is not.