[efitz]

That would be the “secure in their persons”, and probably “secure in their papers” (the latter has been broadly interpreted by the courts to include electronic information, not just physical papers).

US courts have widely ruled that data a that a third party collects/generates/maintains on a person does not fall under the 4th amendment. Many other western countries have actually decided the opposite, that you have a privacy right in data about you.

Personally I think US interpretation is wrong and inconsistent with the 4th amendment. Congress could easily settle the issue wrt federal law enforcement.

[efitz]

Responding to peer comment.

It’s public information if a law enforcement officer happens to see you in public. It’s not public information if their surveillance is via a 3rd party whose information is not public.

Arguably even if you’re in public, surveillance (looking for you specifically) should require a warrant. We could debate that.

[wnevets]

I'm not a lawyer but why would your location be considered “secure in their persons”? If you show up on a traffic camera somewhere for example they don't need a warrant or anything to find out your location or whereabouts. Your location isn't protected at all.

edit: Example

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/08/21/new-mass-gantri...

https://gizmodo.com/e-zpass-is-the-best-tracking-device-that...