[notbob]

If that were true, then wiretaps would be A-OK as long as 1) the phone company willingly plays along; and 2) the tap never physically intrudes upon the subject's property.

SCOTUS ruled explicitly on this question in Katz vs. US -- wiretapping is unconstitutional, regardless of physical intrusion. Just because you route your voice through a switch owned and controlled by a third part does not mean you give up your expectation of privacy.

[drawnwren]

In that case, you haven't entered into an agreement whereby advertisers may know the contents of your phone conversations in order to better target you with ads. If you had, I imagine SCOTUS would rule differently. It seems to me that this debate is merely about price. If the police were buying your location data off of a service that offered it, how would they be any different than advertisers?

[notbob]

> If the police were buying

That's not what is happening here. The police are not purchasing access like an advertiser would; they are receiving special access for the purpose of tracking suspects.

> If you had, I imagine SCOTUS would rule differently.

The SCOTUS of the 1960s was very clear -- routing your communication through a corporate party does not, in any way, negate your expectation of privacy from your own government!

SCOTUS has changed drastically since the 1960s, and I will be unsurprised if SCOTUS rolls back every single 'privacy' case that it encounters. But that has nothing to do with the merits of these cases; it's a way of salting the earth so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned while appearing less overtly political.

[drawnwren]

> That's not what is happening here. The police are not purchasing access like an advertiser would; they are receiving special access for the purpose of tracking suspects.

Yes, but my point was that we're only arguing about how much someone should have to spend to gain access.

> The SCOTUS of the 1960s was very clear -- routing your communication through a corporate party does not,

But my point, _again_, is that they were _not_ clear that you have some expectation of privacy after _selling your personal data on an exchange_.

[notbob]

I know what your point is. My point is that the courts have considered your point and don't agree... and for good reason. Your legal analysis basically amounts to "I don't like that other people use Google's services, and they deserve to suffer for their complacency".