[Alberta's Child]

I believe the conservative rationale is that you should have no expectation of privacy and security of information when you are using technology that puts your sensitive/secure information in the hands of a third party anyway.

[jiggyboy]

I asked on another thread why the phone company is the “third party” instead of the “second party” in what is a two-party transaction. If I am the “first party” and the phone company is the “third party”, who is the “second party”?

[wardaddy]

It looks that way here

I’m with the tards on this one

[Repeal 16-17]

I believe the conservative rationale is that you should have no expectation of privacy and security of information when you are using technology that puts your sensitive/secure information in the hands of a third party anyway.

That would effectively destroy the Fourth Amendment. In today's age, it is not realistic to expect people to not have Internet access or a cell phone. The dissenters' and government's reasoning would allow law enforcement to use your cell phone and Internet access against you. My property should not be used by the government to spy on me. Any reasoning that would effectively nullify the Fourth Amendment should be rejected. The Court got it right today.

[i_robot73]

Then why, for all these years, was it necessary to has a warrant for a phone tap?

If you using the services of a 3rd party...as you state.