where a person who wishes to partake in the social, cultural, and political affairs of our society has no realistic choice but to expose to others, if not to the public as a whole, a broad range of conduct and communications that would previously have been deemed unquestionably private. See Maynard, 615 F.3d at 561, & n. *, 564-65 (noting that pattern of movements over prolonged period, including to places such as church or doctor’s office, reveals “intimate portrait” of subject’s life and that cost and effort to deploy and continue using GPS surveillance is insignificant, and concluding that “the advent of GPS technology has occasioned a heretofore unknown type of intrusion into an ordinarily and hitherto private enclave”); Warshak v. United States, 490 F.3d 455, 473 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>), vacated en banc on other grounds, 532 F.3d
holding that telephone users have no expectation of privacy in dialed telephone numbers because they voluntarily expose such information to the service provider holding that individuals could not maintain action against private citizens and law enforcement officers who intercepted individuals cordless telephone conversations as users of cordless telephone did not have justifiable expectation of privacy for their conversations holding that users have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of stored email holding that subsection b did not apply because the communications at issue were not being stored by an electronic communication service holding that an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of email communications is not vitiated by an understanding that the thirdparty service provider will maintain independent access to them noting that electronic communication is as important to fourth amendment principles today as protecting telephone conversations has been in the past