As I understand it, the company voluntarily provided the records. Obviously they could have demanded some sort of warrant or subpoena. The point is, they chose to provide access to their own records. All I'm saying is this ruling opens up a can of worms. Will the government have to get a warrant to get your credit card records even though the card company is willing to give them up? I understand that the SC said it was unconstitutional. The question is, how reasonable is that? Someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that a company could provide its own records, even if they disclosed info the customer might prefer be kept private.
in effect you asking how reasonable is to protect personal privacy... Constitution was deigned to protect it very much (and that's why i love american Constitution) even so it maybe very inconvenient for the government's function and sc decided it in the same spirit
If I contract with a person to deliver package from me to you.... That person is my agent. Law offices do this all the time with confidential communications. I was younger in large cities law firms had runners. If the govt said open that package the person would have to claim the privacy right of the person who sent them. (probably not their own privacy right because they would have no expectation of privacy in someone elses' package.) If the govt said where did that package come from... I would argue the runner could refuse to answer the question on behalf of the principles privacy rights. We contract with the phone company to deliver messages and data. I see the situation as analogous to the scenario above. My location is part of that delivery process. Again, one way or the other... the private company is either tracking data for the govt or keeping our private life private... They are serving somebody.... Now, you could say but the company volunteered the info. With the way govt throws money around buying up data and services from big companies and with the way the DOJ and govt agencies throws threats around including Rosenstein I would have to conclude all requests from the govt when it comes to privacy data... can be considered coerced so there is not such thing as voluntary compliance for companies.
This is not a new right. Why is it even a question? The existence of new technology that presents new opportunities to invade your privacy is no reason you should lose an existing right.
Your analogy is flawed because there is an attorney/client or work product privilege involved. Thisprotects the records of an attorney's client in the attorney's custody, unless the client is Donald Trump, in which case different rules apply. In fact, any shipment these days that goes via air is subject to search by TSA. Delivery companies like FedEx routinely screen packages for contraband. You have no constitutional protection against them sharing delivery details with the government, and I am reltively sure they routinely do so. Some ofthese practices may be thrown into doubt by Roberts ill-considered opinion. Again, I ma not arguing there isn't some legitimate expectation of privacy in these examples, only that it is not of constitutional proportions.
I was not talking about attorney work product. That would be a different analysis. Take any other business. Lets say an advertising agency. You put your valuable work product in a sack and expect it to be delivered. Your right of privacy is protected. Police can't just force you to open the sack unless the courier is a criminal with a 4th amendment waiver. They would need probably cause or a warrant. The courier would not have to say where he or she had been either. I believe we learned stop and frisk was not constitutional. So stop and search would not be either. Now lets apply this to a demand that the courier turn over his principles location. A search at the border would be a different analysis.
rewrite... Under the 4th amendment a person carrying a message you wrote would not be required to let the govt read the message nor would the person carrying the message be forced to divulge you location. (Absent exceptions such as probable cause or a warrant.) Also, as I explained earlier, when the govt asks larger companies for data I think the request should be deemed coercive
Ok, I'll weigh in. I think the SCOTUS decision was correct. I believe a person's personal information and/or data, phone records, location data, etc (in most cases) should be subject to 4th Amendment protections. The exceptions would be any data provided directly to the government (tax forms, etc). Also, anything occurring in public (say a phone conversation is picked up by a microphone, or a cctv picks up a robbery in public), because in public there is no expectation of privacy.
The Fourth Amendment has never been interpreted to protect transaction details with a third party, if that party decides to release it. Now jem says it is inherently coercive if the government asks, and that is probably correct but it hasn't been a factor in decisions. I get it that we live in a world where technology creates many new problems. I prefer they be addressed by the legitimate body congress, rather than by unelected judges.