Mulva;1430869 wrote:Starbucks isn't located in my home. Huge difference between logging into a public internet cafe and your own internet connection. If you established the wifi service within your home, then why shouldn't "secure within their houses" apply? What about people logging into the internet for the purpose of emailing or online banking? How does one monitor that with no warrant without invading "papers or effects"?.
Again, you are making a distinction between the location of the person and the activity that the law doesn't. You are physically located at home, but your activity is taking place outside of your home on the internet. If you could somehow drink that cup of Starbucks coffee over the internet, that activity is a public activity taking place at Starbucks, even if you are physically located in your home.
Like I said, existing privacy laws don't really cover internet activity, which is a public activity. There are many things you are free to do in your home, but not in public. It's privacy advocates trying to expand those definitions and protections when the justification/legal basis is unclear at best.
And the law doesn't say the govt can violate property rights to seize that data. It leaves it up to the owner of the data - the IP provider or whomever - if they want to disclose it without a warrant. In other words, it's basically saying that you don't own your digital data, the service provider you conduct the activity on owns the data (just like Starbucks owns the receipt for your coffee). Then if Google, for example, were to voluntarily hand over gmail data it stands to reason users would abandon the service by the millions.
If you want to argue you should own your digital data, then fine. But possession being 9/10th of the law...