>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Most of our digital information is not gathered from places protected by the 4th Amendment - you sent that data to somebody else. Albeit unwittingly, but that's legally your fault, per the ToS.
Scalia, despite being a polarizing figure, was a staunch defender of the 4th Amendment, and even he admitted that this was a grey area[1]. This is because he was an originalist, and this scenario never could have been imagined by the forefathers. So there's no real "original intent" to look towards, which is very important to the Supreme Court in their rulings.
That said, I believe Snowden did the right thing, as this still highlights a gaping hole in our rights, and anyone who denotes him a traitor for it is bordering being one themselves.
[1]: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/asked_about_nsa_stuf...
Edit: I'll add that the CIA leaks are more troubling, if you'd like to see some true violations of 4th amendment rights. IANASupremeCourtJustice, but I think bugging a smart TV would qualify here.
"in thier persons" and "in their houses"
My computer, or phone, or whatever is in my house or on my person therefore it applies.
"papers"
Files/emails/etc. these days are just digital "papers", there for it applies to all digital communications.
The spirit of the amendment is abundantly clear (despite Scalia's ignorance on this), and there is zero ambiguity. Anyone arguing that technically it doesn't apply to <insert technology that the writers could not possibly have fathomed here>, is someone who simply wants to subvert the constitution. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise on any sort of solid ground, the spirit is so crystal clear the writers couldn't not have done a better job.
Maybe if you were running an SMTP server from your home would the 4th amendment apply in the way that you think it does. Most people have trusted another entity to house their "digital papers", so your beef should be with the organizations who hand it over to Feds without a fight.
At least understand the nature of the problem before commenting so vehemently on it.
Um, it does. The 4th amendment:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Edit: and I don't think the Constitution or Amendments have anything to say about classified documents, nor national security. (After all, it was written at a time when there was fresh memories of a foreign army marching through America. There was no 'national security'.) I wouldn't be surprised if that whole bureaucracy gets ruled unconstitutional at some point.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."