

The significance of Riley  - wglb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/25/the-significance-of-riley/

======
rayiner
Congrats to Prof. Kerr for getting cited twice (at least?) in this opinion.

If you read one Supreme Court opinion this year, read pages 15-25 of this
one,[1] particularly the discussion of data accessible on cloud services on
page 21. There is a lot in there that HN readers will nod along to, and I
think should clearly dispel the notion that this Court doesn't understand the
issues implicated by these sorts of cases. This is not an opinion that takes a
narrow approach to 4th amendment interpretation.

There's a lot that can be quoted here, but I'll single out one: your documents
in the cloud are your "papers and effects" for the purposes of the 4th
amendment. Slip. Op. at 22. It will be really interesting to see how the Court
reconciles this with the Third Party doctrine, when that issue comes up.

[1]
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf)

~~~
gohrt
Too bad HN doesn't allow edits to old posts:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?q=%22papers+and+effects%22+rayiner#!...](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=%22papers+and+effects%22+rayiner#!/comment/forever/0/%22papers%20and%20effects%22%20rayiner)

~~~
mrmaddog
I fail to understand your insinuation here - in the future an articulated
reply would be preferable. In each of the comments, I read rayiner's argument
as "Your metadata isn't your data, and thus cannot be considered your papers
and effects." My personal emails stored on GMail's servers seem to be squarely
in domain of "papers and effects," according to the pages rayiner refers to,
but does not offer any insight on whether the metadata (who I emailed) should
be in this domain.

I believe rayiner refers to exactly this issue in the above comment when
calling out the Third Party Doctrine.

