You may have heard that the Supremes are planning to give the thumbs up to cops going through your smartphone.
You may also have heard that the NSA collects all our info and runs searches and we're all supposed to be cool with it because WE ALREADY GAVE THAT INFORMATION AWAY ANYWAY I MEAN SHIT.
They've been doing it for years in Idaho. Which is pretty weird because we don't even believe in the Third Party doctrine.
Prof. Kerr and the ever batshit crazy Stewart Baker at the Volokh conspiracy are huge fans of the Third Party Doctrine, establish years back in a case called Smith v. Maryland and said that if you give info to another person it isn't secret anymore. Thus, when you make phone calls, that info goes to a phone company, and now you have no expectation of privacy. Because you wanted those phone employees to know, and expected them to make a shrine to you, gathering your calls and thinking of you each time they lovingly look over it.
Idaho said "that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard." "No seriously. Are you all fucking high?" And we have State v. Thompson and we don't have to deal with that kind of bullshit. You need a warrant to get phone records in this state.
So given that we don't even have this, you read the arguments for the Third Party Doctrine which include such gems as "you should know better, person making phone calls or using the internet" and "but without this, how will the government know when it needs a warrant?" and you think, "Bu-wah?"
These are pretty easy things to answer. First, who gives a crap if I "gave" data to a massive company that does not, nor should anyone expect it to, read my emails, google searches, and phone calls? Hell, if anything, I kind of assume whatever relationship I have with these people requires them NOT to read my things. But that's not right, because they use machines that read it, compile it, and give advertising on that basis, so like, clearly it's all good. Really? Because a machine made to do advertising reads what I do I'm supposed to think nothing I do online is private? Who are these idiots?
The even stupider argument, which apparently Prof. Kerr is a big fan of, is "where do we draw the line?" Look, you goon, it's not like we fight a revolutionary war so we could cry like babies over how the government just doesn't know when to run its requests by a judge. GET A WARRANT. When in doubt GET A WARRANT. What happened to the preference for warrants? I know you worked for the DOJ, Prof Kerr, but why not try on being a thinking rational person? You think the Fourth Amendment's demand for reasonable searches and seizures doesn't apply because the government isn't seizing anything or searching anything that isn't public? Dream on asshole.
The very fact that the police are fighting with such inane arguments to do what they are doing without oversight from the judicial branch should FREAK EVERYONE THE FUCK OUT. Period.
Rant for the day is done.