>and then absurdly extended to include anything anyone holds for someone else, even someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage. Was the

>and then absurdly extended to include anything anyone holds for someone else, even someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage. Was there actually a court ruling affirming this interpretation? Skimming the wikipedia article, all the court cases has to do with metadata generated by the third party provider (eg. cell site data or cryptocurrency transaction information). You can argue those should be protected as well, but it's not something like "someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage", like an email inbox or whatever.