A core analogy here is the distinguishment between say a letter, which when you hand it to the government to convey to an associate is protected, versus an e-mail, which handed to Google or a private channel via the web at-large, is not protected. There are federal courts[1] which would agree that e-mail should be protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has recently been skeptical of the government in decisions on Search and Seizure (c.f. Jones[2] and Florida v. Jardines[3]). The government has generally avoided scrutiny from the Court by generating laws that do not grant clear standing. The recent accusation of "evidence laundering" shows the governments out-right reluctance to let the collection tactics stand up to judicial scrutiny. I want the law changed, but while these are laws, I would hope we can push for proper judicial overview.
Comments
A core analogy here is the distinguishment between say a letter, which when you hand it to the government to convey to an associate is protected, versus an e-mail, which handed to Google or a private channel via the web at-large, is not protected. There are federal courts[1] which would agree that e-mail should be protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has recently been skeptical of the government in decisions on Search and Seizure (c.f. Jones[2] and Florida v. Jardines[3]). The government has generally avoided scrutiny from the Court by generating laws that do not grant clear standing. The recent accusation of "evidence laundering" shows the governments out-right reluctance to let the collection tactics stand up to judicial scrutiny. I want the law changed, but while these are laws, I would hope we can push for proper judicial overview.
[1] http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0377p-06.pdf
[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
[3] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/florida-v-jardine...