technological development that wasn't available to the government or for the court to consider when it decided rielly. it might not make any difference to the court by do think it illustrates the problem problems that we have when technology is consistently leapfrogging the doctrines that have been laid out by the courts, and the courts are given very little choice but to decide concrete cases one at a time. they can't count on congbpíñÑ intervening. they can't just say this is a hard problem, we will not be set at all. unless you get concrete defense out there who are asserting interest. the last thing i will say is i think the courts are probably come if not the best place, at least may be the right place to try to be considering how much the value of privacy really should bear on the law enforcement techniques. i say that because i think i have a slightly different slant from the government side a slightly different plan on the valley of privacy that has been perceived today as underlying fourth amendment interest everything can be traced back a stroke ago and that a certain degree of privacy i