> The premise of the third party doctrine is that it's not objectively reasonable to consider information private when you've given up control of that informati

> The premise of the third party doctrine is that it's not objectively reasonable to consider information private when you've given up control of that information to a third party. How can something be private when it's at the total discretion of someone else to disseminate that information? In that case, why doesn't it cut both ways? The Gov't gave access to Snowden, so does that suddenly make it reasonable that he should be able to share that data with the world? The fact that most people expect their telephone, email, etc records to be private should say that the 3rd party doctrine is fundamentally flawed.