From my parent comment:
The design of a case law system however, which the U.S. operates under, is intended to minimize fuzziness by looking at case precedent for guidance on issues moving forward.
Aren't we in agreement?
The design of a case law system however, which the U.S. operates under, is intended to minimize fuzziness by looking at case precedent for guidance on issues moving forward.
Aren't we in agreement?
For example, look at Katz v. US, one of the seminal cases that would inform this case. In Katz, the court starts with existing law, one that prevents illegal searches, and tries to decide whether that law can apply to electronics (such as tapping a phone). At this point the OCCSSA is in effect, but not really tested, so we've got a pretty fuzzy legal area despite the fact that phones are a well established technology. The court rules that even though law enforcement did not search or seize things, that privacy is still implied in electronic communications because of other acts a user takes surrounding the act of making a phone call (closing the door, making the phone call from home, etc.).
In fact, there's a whole legal concept at work here called lawful intrusion that is built upon every time a case is judged. These concepts, and human application of them to the case at hand, help attorneys, judges and juries deal with edge cases.