and we have lower courts intervene challenges intersection 215 trying to figure out whether smith vs. maryland is viable or narrowed in some way going forward, that is not clear but the supreme court in the next few years, cheeses yesterday, the fourth circuit heard a case on oral arguments in a case weather multi data is protected under the fourth amendment, there's a split on the part of the supreme court, it is protected, these are all issues in the supreme court. in general the justices tend to be relatively sensitive to how technology changes privacy. if you look back to 2000, and of thermal imaging case, jones versus the united states in 2012 and riley versus california this year, those are all cases where if you look at the case law, the president, you assume the government would win and these are all three cases back to government loss in jones and riley they lost unanimously. they are attuned to these concerns so we are seeing fourth amendment law evolve and if we had a functioning congress you would see the congress active but the statutory picture here caught up on the broader dysfu

i think we see some attacks on smith vs. maryland. i think we're seeing an erosion of that doctrine and i think the most plain example is the warshack case where the court, the sixth circuit said you retain a reasonable expectation of privacy, meaning the third party doctrine doesn't illuminate your constitutional right to privacy and the contents of your e-mail when held with an e-mail provider. so that's -- ma may seem absolutely obvious to you and not a great breakthrough, but it is. d that case is significant for providers who now all -- certainly those in the ninth circuit, which includes google and a lot of the big providers -- require warrants before they'll disclose the contents of stored communications like your e-mail. where the statute that governs this actually doesn't always require a warrant. so we have case law that actually goes the other way so go ahead and talk about the updates. >> rick is exactly right. it is the electronic communication privacy act and senator leahy and others have bipartisan legislation to requir

why has v the courts taken almost 40 years since smith vs. maryland to look at this again when we have had several technical revolutions. >> we have about 10 minutes left for a few agrees the audience. -- questions from the audience. raise your hand. you know the drill. >> while we're waiting for the mic, let me add to that. i think we see r-seeing an rogues of that doctrine and i ink the prime example is the yace the court, the fifth circuit said you retain a reasonable level of privacy meaning the third party doctrine doesn't eliminate your constitutional right to privacy and email your email provide that case is significant for providers who now all -- certainly those in the ninth circuit which includes google and a lot of the big providers require warrants before they will disclose the contents of scored things like your email but the statute actually doesn't always require a warrant. we do have some case lou. you need to turn over that content based on something less -- you're about to jump out of your seat. o ahead and talk about it. >> rick is

we have challenges under section 215, to find out hether smith vs. maryland is still viable.t may get up to the supreme court in a few years. yesterday the 4th circuit heard oral argument on a case about whether cell phone data is protected. the florida court said it is protected, and the 5th circuit said it is not protected. they are working their wake-up up to the supreme court. the justices tend to be relatively sensitive to how technology affects privacy. jones versus the united states, the g.p.s. case from 2012. and riley versus california just this past year or this year. those are all cases where if you just looked at the case law, the precedents, you would assume the government would win, and those are all three cases where the government lost, and in jones and riley they lost unanimously. the justices are generally attuned to these concerns in lower courts as well. we are seeing fourth mend ypt law evolve, and if we had a functioning congress, you would see congress active. you see more action in the state legislature. one example would be the license plate readers.