Gunslingr3 wrote: “Wrong. I’m QUOTING the Supreme Court. You’re the one trying to mislead people, and you have nothing you can quote from the Supreme Court that affirms your efforts to mislead.”
You are attempting to apply a case involving Cell Phone Data to a generalized expectation of privacy.
Here is a quote from Carpenter:
“Our decision today is a narrow one. We do not express a view on matters not before us: real-time CSLI or “tower dumps” (a download of information on all the devices that connected to a particular cell site during a particular interval). We do not disturb the application of Smith and Miller or call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras. ...”
IOW, the court specifically denied Carpenter applied to cameras.
Here’s an overview of the law governing the expectation of privacy.
AI Overview
A reasonable expectation of privacy is a legal test used under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to decide if a government search or seizure is legal.
The Two-Part Legal Test
Rooted in the landmark Supreme Court case Katz v. United States, a search occurs and the Fourth Amendment applies only when:
Subjective expectation: The individual actually expects a degree of privacy through their actions or choices.
Objective reasonableness: Society as a whole recognizes that expectation as fair, legitimate, and reasonable.
Where Privacy Exists
The Home: Individuals hold the strongest expectation of privacy inside their own houses, apartments, and immediate surrounding areas.
Personal Belongings: Closed containers like luggage, purses, and locked digital devices (cell phones and computers) are generally protected.
Private Communications: Contents of phone calls, letters, and sealed mail are shielded from warrantless wiretapping or inspection.
Where Privacy Does Not Exist
Public Spaces: Actions, visible possessions, and spoken words in open public areas (like streets, parks, or sidewalks) lack privacy.
Abandoned Property: Discarded items, such as trash left out on the curb for collection, have no protection.
Open Fields: Undeveloped or open land outside a home’s immediate boundary can be viewed or walked through by officers without a warrant.
Exposed Data: Information knowingly shared with third parties—such as dialed phone numbers, bank logs, or public social media posts—is generally unprotected.
IOW, you do not have an expectation of privacy in public places.
Yes, because I understand the principle behind the ruling. That's the part you keep trying to evade.
They brought this point home in the most recent decision, Chatrie v. United States (2026):
"The Court began its analysis by reviewing what it had said about a different way of tracking “physical location and movements”: the use of a GPS device to monitor a vehicle.
In United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. 400, five Justices had agreed that such tracking counts as a Fourth Amendment search because “individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.”
...
A new technology should not transform what individuals had reasonably thought they could withhold from the Government."