threat to individual privacy. I do not believe that that is a fair characterization of the stakes in this dispute. To uphold the warrant here would not undermine basic values of privacy as defined in the Fourth Amendment and in the libertarian traditions of this country. As the majority correctly points out, the SCA presents a tiered set of requirements for government access to electronic communications and information relating to them. Although Congress adopted the Act in order to provide some privacy protections to such communications, see H.R. Rep. No. 99-647, at 21-23 (1986); S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 3 (1986), those requirements are in many ways less protective of privacy than many might think appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266, 288 (6th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>); Orín S. Kerr, A User’s Guide to the Stored
holding that it was clearly established for  1983 purposes that an arrest founded upon a recalled warrant violates the fourth amendment holding that an fbi agents investigation of the written contents of a notebook that was lawfully in the possession of the fbi constituted a search that violated the defendants fourth amendment rights holding that whether error in failing to ask a question about bias in favor of law enforcement testimony requires reversal hinges on such factors as the importance of the government agents testimony to the case as a whole the extent to which the question concerning the venire persons attitude toward government agents is covered in other questions  the extent to which the credibility of the government agentwitness is put into issue and the extent to which the testimony of the government agent is corroborated by nonagent witnesses internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that the sca violates the fourth amendment to the extent that it allows government agents to obtain the contents of emails without a warrant holding that the content of emails recovered from other sources was probative of the contents of lost emails