Indeed. If we are to have any privacy at all, what the court needs to do is take a close look at the reasoning behind previous decisions involving "3rd party information". Right now, the court says you have zero privacy interest in this information. I think that may have been arguable 30 years ago, but they really need to look at the reality of the world we now live in and see if their arguments really do hold water.
If we actually did live in a free country, some cell phone company would compete based on a 30-day data retention period, where they wipe out all collected data 30 days after the billing cycle. The biggest problem we have with this stuff is that these companies hold on to the data effectively forever. There was an example mentioned during oral arguments on the case, where police had requested over a years worth of location data for an individual. That's freaking insane given the level of detail that has. The court claims that the police could spy on someone for however long they wanted if they had a warrant to do so, but what's really happening here is retroactive spying where the police have the ability to dig through a person's life in incredible detail for a year or more in the past because they can, and it is relatively cheap to do so. It would be much more costly to have to set up that kind of personal surveillance on an individual, but the court is still treating the two situations as being equivalent due to old rulings that have little relevance to today's world.
Yes, and IMO it is Congress that should deal with it. So much easier and more within the intended system to have Congress address it.
Too bad they’re so dysfunctional and Deep State-captured!