부산대학교 도서관

Can the government buy its way around the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement? As the panic over data-sharing after Dobbs illustrates, the answer is an urgent yes. Transactions between the government and data brokers--businesses that acquire, aggregate, and sell massive amounts of data on individuals' digital activities--fall outside the Stored Communications Act's hopelessly out-of-date guardrails and through a Fourth Amendment "loophole." Though the Supreme Court's 2018 Carpenter decision provides a useful framework for evaluating data's Fourth Amendment protection, it will not save us from data brokers. The "tick-tick-tock" cycle of Fourth Amendment precedent and privacy legislation is off As Orwell would say, the clocks are "striking thirteen." It is past time for Congress to pass new privacy legislation. But what should that legislation look like? History, as usual, offers clues. In this Note, I argue that to rebalance competing interests in light of paradigm technological change, Congress must learn from past mistakes in drafting the Stored Communications Act. I analyze three potential legislative solutions--the Fourth Amendment Is Not for Sale Act; the My Body, My Data Act: and California's "Delete Act"--and propose my own, which combines the strengths of each and provides flexibility for future technological developments. That way, when the Fourth Amendment clock strikes again, we will be ready. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]