[TexasGurl24]

Huh? Did you read him in context?

“What to do? It seems to me we could respond in at least
three ways. The first is to ignore the problem, maintain
Smith and Miller, and live with the consequences. If the
confluence of these decisions and modern technology
means our Fourth Amendment rights are reduced to nearly
nothing, so be it. The second choice is to set Smith and
Miller aside and try again using the Katz “reasonable
expectation of privacy” jurisprudence that produced them.
The third is to look for answers elsewhere.”

He is clearly saying that ignoring the problem would result in the eroding of the 4th Amendment, and that is not a good thing.

[Theoria]

Yes, and he's putting up excuse. As if that's the only problems. Gorsuch, and similar tend to default to .gov instead of defending the people. Exchanging between two parties does not give up your privacy against .gov. nor granting more power to .gov. Thomas reasons were as lame as his. I could have easily seen the brits using his rationale to endeavor in their control over us.

[zeugma]

The second choice is to set Smith and Miller aside and try again using the Katz “reasonable expectation of privacy” jurisprudence that produced them.

The big problem with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard is that it's a loophole for the government big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through.