Why isn&#39;t FBI&#39;s access to our data against the right of privacy?
<p>In many blogs, it's said that your search history may get you in jail, like <a href="https://www.lawteryx.com/knowledge-center/criminal-law/illegal-internet-searches/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Can Your Internet Search History Get You Arrested</a> and <a href="https://www.eezlaw.com/blog/2021/april/internet-searches-that-could-get-you-arrested/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Internet Searches That Could Get You Arrested</a>. Seems that FBI can have access to our online data.</p>
<p>Why isn't FBI's access to our data against the right of privacy? What's even worse is that they may abuse their access for other conspiracy purposes. Is there a system to prevent the FBI from utilising their access for some vicious plot?</p>
<p>To avoid technological distinctions, assume for the sake of this question that the searches take place in the US using a United States internet service provider, using a U.S.-based search engine, not using a VPN.</p>

<p>Firstly, because there isn't an explicit Constitutional &quot;right to privacy&quot;, per se, and even if there was (and there are arguments that several constitutional provisions amount, in aggregate, to a right to privacy), that it wouldn't be absolute, in the same way that freedom of speech and of the press are not absolutes.</p>
<p>Indeed, the closest thing to a right to privacy, the 4th Amendment, has explicit caveats: &quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against <strong>unreasonable</strong> searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no <strong>Warrants</strong> shall issue, but upon <strong>probable cause</strong>, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.&quot; (emphasis mine). Thus reasonable searches and seizures, especially those authorized by a warrant, are constitutional.</p>
<p>Furthermore, even in light of a constitutional right of privacy derived from this statue, depending on how the &quot;search history&quot; is compiled, the 4th Amendment might not even apply, due to the <em>Katz</em> doctrine, also known as the &quot;open fields&quot; doctrine. Basically, the 4th amendment (as far as searches goes) does not apply to things that are publicly observable; while this would protect a literal &quot;search history&quot; compilation (baring a reasonable search), the searches themselves are public queries, broadcasted over the internet. Anyone watching could compile them into a &quot;search history&quot; themselves.</p>

privacy constitutional-law search-and-seizure fourth-amendment fbi