As most of us know the 4th Amendment protects an individual against unreasonable search and seizures. Moreover a search is unreasonable where an officer violates an individuals "reasonable expectation of privacy" to obtain evidence without probable cause and a warrant, notwithstanding a number of exceptions. To determine if the officer violated an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy the court has looked at the norms of the society at the time. For instance, the use of infrared scanning to pick up the heat signatures of a suspect in his own home was deemed a 4th Amendment violation since a person has an expectation of privacy in his own home (the police could tell when someone in the house was bathing for instance). In the recent case of of Maryland v. King the Court considered whether mandatory DNA testing after an arrest was a 4th Amendment violation when it links the individual to an unrelated crime. The reasoning of the defendent is that unlike fingerprinting, DNA testing is far more intrusive, as it has the potential to give the police access to tremendous amounts of information regarding the suspect. This raises an important question though. In this information age private companies have access to substantial amounts of information about ourselves, about our financial status, our shopping preferences, our hobbies, and our intellectual interests. Thus, does the traditional "reasonable expectation of privacy" analysis have any relevency or logic in todays age? Or should a new test be created to preserve our traditional rights, but at the same time take into account the fact that we now enjoy very little privacy? What would this/should this new test look like?