A core analogy here is the distinguishment between say a letter, which when you hand it to the government to convey to an associate is protected, versus an e-mail, which handed to Google or a private channel via the web at-large, is not protected. There are federal courts[1] which would agree that e-mail should be protected by the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has recently been skeptical of the government in decisions on Search and Seizure (c.f. Jones[2] and Florida v. Jardines[3]). The government has generally avoided scrutiny from the Court by generating laws that do not grant clear standing. The recent accusation of "evidence laundering" shows the governments out-right reluctance to let the collection tactics stand up to judicial scrutiny. I want the law changed, but while these are laws, I would hope we can push for proper judicial overview.

[1] http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0377p-06.pdf

[2] http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

[3] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/florida-v-jardine...

I think it's pretty easy to abstract papers to the internet and personal files.

Paper was used for storing personal information and for transmitting that information to others. Security was achieved through wax seals and other markings that would show tampering.

data = papers.

You're wrong, I think. Condiser: a phone call. Fed's are not allowed to tap a landline without a warrant. Its the communication that is protected, not the property. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy. What is reasonable? That's where the debate will be determined.

I've never heard the argument you're making -- that it doesn't apple because it's data. The NSA/gov has said repeatedly what their argument is.. it's because you've entrusted a third-party with it, and therefore there was no expectation of privacy.

Yes this is a reason too. Katz v US.

People need to think "Who really owns my facebook account, my twitter account, my dropbox, etc..." If it isnt you (it isnt... trust me) then you're out of luck

That is not correct. It is still your data (that's why you need to grant a license to these companies to show your pictures even just back to you), and the third party doctrine is not settled law.

It has backing in precedent, but as ghayes cites above, the supreme court has given some strong signals that they would not agree with it today (e.g. in US v Jones). In addition, the incredibly important US v Warshak had the sixth circuit ruling that email in long term storage on a third party's server had just as much expectation of privacy for the owner as any personally held document. There are several companies now using that as a legal basis for requiring a warrant (which requires demonstrating probable cause) for account content requests (apparently outside of those coming from the FBI/NSA, unfortunately...), so it's likely this will come up before too long, either in Congress (I'd love to see the ECPA reformed but don't have high hopes) or in the Supreme Court, especially if another court of appeals rules differently.

I also have no idea why you cite Katz v US, as that's where the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test itself comes from, which runs directly counter to the later legal theory of the third party doctrine (in e.g. Smith v Maryland), which takes little account for reasonable expectations so long as you're handing off your communications to a third party.

My point that "you don't own it" is more from a security standpoint. ..which was pretty dumb to say. I can't verify that companies wont give my data to the feds and I can't trust them not to. It isn't my data to maintain anymore