Then what's the point of privacy policies if they are rendered useless by Smith vs Maryland? Then the privacy policies should only have two sentences:
"We can do whatever we want with your data once you give it to us. Problem?"
The truth is the government is just using the Constitution/rulings as it suits them. They've changed the meaning of the word "relevant" to mean millions of people for 3-hops from the target. They are doing the same with Smith vs Maryland. They're just pushing it to its very limit, or even far beyond the limit. But I doubt that if the Supreme Court from back then were to rule in a contemporary case like that, it would rule the same way.
"We can do whatever we want with your data once you give it to us. Problem?"
The truth is the government is just using the Constitution/rulings as it suits them. They've changed the meaning of the word "relevant" to mean millions of people for 3-hops from the target. They are doing the same with Smith vs Maryland. They're just pushing it to its very limit, or even far beyond the limit. But I doubt that if the Supreme Court from back then were to rule in a contemporary case like that, it would rule the same way.