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."
Gunslingr3: “Yes, because I understand the principle behind the ruling. That’s the part you keep trying to evade.”
Obviously, you do not understand the principle. Otherwise you’d realize the key word is ‘reasonable’. It is ‘reasonable’ to expect cell phone data to be protected. It is not ‘reasonable’ to expect what you can see with the naked eye to be protected anymore than it is ‘reasonable’ for a conversation conducted on a street corner to be protected.