The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear Harper v. Faulkender reveals a troubling indifference toward the growing threats to digital privacy in the modern era. At the heart of the case was a crucial question: Should the government be allowed to seize detailed personal financial data—like cryptocurrency transactions—from private companies without a warrant? By declining to hear the case, the Court effectively endorsed the continued application of the outdated third-party doctrine, a legal relic from a pre-digital age when telephones were still rotary and “data” was stored in filing cabinets. This doctrine assumes that any information willingly shared with a third party (such as a bank, internet provider, or crypto exchange) loses its Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In an age where nearly all our activities—financial, social, medical—are intermediated through digital platforms, this principle opens the door for mass data collection without judicial oversight.

The implications of the Court’s inaction are profound. James Harper’s case symbolized a larger movement seeking to modernize privacy protections for the digital economy, where individuals are compelled by necessity to entrust vast troves of personal data to third parties. If courts continue to shrug at this reality, it effectively gives federal agencies like the IRS carte blanche to harvest sensitive information without accountability. This undermines not only the spirit of the Fourth Amendment but also public trust in institutions designed to protect civil liberties. The Supreme Court had a timely opportunity to recalibrate legal interpretations for the digital age—but by dodging the issue, it signals to citizens that their constitutional protections may not extend into the realms where their lives increasingly take place.

Stay Awake. Keep Watch.

SOURCE: Reclaim the Net