There is a level of interpretation required here. The 4th amendment wasn't written in an age where it was conceivable that information could be copied for free or intercepted without taking something from a carrier. What's important is the intent of the protections. NSA has decided to interpret these wordings in a way which lets them intercept and copy communications, and it's the job of the courts to interpret the constitution and tell them that they aren't allowed to do that.
This is not true at all. Copying papers and documents was very common and expected in that time, and it has been since the dawn of writing. The 4th amendment is clearly meant to protect against this:
"The right of the people to be secure in their [...] papers [...] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Why should the amendment protect papers if it is only the physical page that is protected and not the actual information?
It is more of a question of what is reasonable -- does a person know who has access to their information? Do they put their information out there with the understanding that it isn't private? The very basic idea here is that people should know what rights and privacies they have, and violating the conditions where they can reasonably expect privacy should be illegal.
Surely even back in the technological dark ages of the 1700's it was possible for agents to make observations and report on "metadata"? After all, what about Paul Revere? So, I don't easily buy the flippant "times have changed" hand waiving.
Paul Revere's observation of events happening and reporting back in his own words isn't a great analogy. A better one would be to intercept all stagecoaches at their midway points across the entire United States, and manually copy verbatim the letters they carry in case one day we want to know what Jack said to Joe.
Yes, the passing of "information" is not new. But I believe the intercepting of mail, copying and then letting the original letter through to its destination without a warrant is illegal. (Isn't it?)
A much better analogy would be for the postmaster to be noting the sender and recipient of every letter that came through his station in a log that was then passed along to King George's agents in the colonies, allowing them to draw whatever inference they might like — while somehow also having a copy of every letter to hand for further perusal in the event any of the corresponding parties were deemed "suspicious."
I'm no scholar of Revolutionary era America, but I'm pretty sure that if shit of that sort were going down, it would have gotten specific mention in the Declaration.
I'm not sure precisely sure what shit you're talking about going down, but the Crown certainly brought a lot of shit down. Consequently the Constitution certainly respects a Freedom of Assembly. And yet at the same time they doesn't go so far as to forbid the government from tracking and monitoring assembly.
If you associate with someone that runs afoul of the law, why is it unreasonable to consider you? You seem to think the only possible outcome of actually examining your shit is incrimination. It cuts both ways, you know. You could be ruled out.
