Terry Gross' Fresh Air: Interpreting the Constitution in the Digital Era

Facts/Details:

1. Constitution 3.0, a collection of essays of future technological developments that stress the Constitution and shows how the current Constitution is out-dated.
2. The Supreme Court is currently dealing with a case on the legality of the Police force placing a GPS tracking device on a car without a warrant. The biggest question is what is the difference of tracking for 10 to 100 miles compared to tracking for a month.
3. The GPS tracking case is possible one of the biggest steps or cases involving privacy, that our time faces.
4. Louis Brandeis, considered a visionary of both rights of privacy and rights of speech, realized, in a case from his own time, that it is not necessary to breaking into or have physical trespassing for the creation of an unreasonable search to occur.
5. Jeff Rosen believes that there is a necessity for translation of the Constitution. In his essay, in Constitution 3.0, he shows a story of a world at the time of 2025, where people have the ability to know what you are doing and where you are 24/7, via security camera and things like such.
6. The Fourth Amendment only prohibits the government from unreasonable search and seizure, meaning that a case against a company, like Facebook, would be very different compare to a case against the government.
7. Senator Ron Wyden, a democrat from Oregon, and Senator Josh Chaffetz, republican from Utah, proposed a bipartisan bill dealing with privacy rights and GPS tracking. The bill is called Geo-location Privacy and Surveillance bill, and it was created to regulate the global positioning devices used by the government.
8. Google Maps became controversial when it started taking 'street view' picture, because it is a possible invasion of privacy. In Germany the decided that they would not let Google because of their strict laws on data gathering.
9.  The lines regarding privacy, adhering or breaking, are very different between American and Europe, as the two have very different policies on data gathering.
10. In France the French Data Privacy Commissioner has said that there should be a legal right to "escape your past" and the content of your person, on the internet, its called the "right to oblivion".

Questions:

1.  As Rosen mentioned that Facebook is a private company, can Facebook be regulated by the Constitution?
2. In Jeff Rosen's Open World essay, what can we do about these private companies and corporations and can they be regulated/ held accountable if a corporation  can be viewed as an individual?
3. Can the existing Constitution deal with such matters like ones in Constitution 3.0?
4. Excluding the case, judge, precedents,etc. What can we do about internet privacy in general?
5. How far, privacy wise, are we able to stretch the Constitution or how far has the American government stretched the Constitution to fit new ideas, technology, etc?