[rynohack]

That's basically the approach taken in Carpenter v. United States. The Supreme Court said, sure, the police could track people in public with dozens of cars and thousands of man hours, but using CLSI data means it can be done with a few mouse clicks.

You can't apply the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard when you get into these new electronic forms of surveillance. It's become far too cheap and easy to surveil.

Not that I fully endorse their broaded view of privacy, I see it as much more of a fundamental right. That said, I was impressed that this court(who constantly misunderstands technology) understood this.

[jeffbee]

I cannot endorse this overbroad definition of "privacy" and in fact I can't see the logic in it at all. It is true that in the past the cops could not automatically hoover up your posts, but is also true that in the past no individual person could reach millions/billions of other individuals instantly with short messages and videos. The increase in scope of police collection of public communications is proportional to the increase in reach of those communications platforms. It is all well-balanced.