[quote=“wysinwyg, post:27, topic:12725”]
Most of the time if law enforcement wants to look at a surveillance video the operator of the surveillance camera will have a vested interest in letting them do so since usually it’s a result of a crime committed on the property of the camera operator. If law enforcement wants a video of the camera operator committing a crime captured on his or her own cameras then they need a f*cking warrant.
[/quote]If you keep your communications on your own computer and only transfer files through flash drives or the like, then the government needs a warrant. If you ask Gmail to store and deliver your email, you’re no longer simply using your own infrastructure. You ask your ISP to fetch data for you and you’re no longer only using your own infrastructure. You might not like my analogy, but if pretty closely tracks how snail mail (with its public name and address metadata) is delivered and phone calls (with it’s Constitutionally unprotected phone numbers) are connected.
And why does the vested interest of the camera operator matter? If you think it should be constitutionally protected, then it should be constitutionally protected. Does it matter if AT&T or Google consent? Because they may have a vested interest in not having their services used in the name of terrorism.
