And they are protected in your possession. If you turn over all your papers to a third-party, though, that changes things.
eta We may need more privileged communications, but they are very rare. Creating one is probably a good idea, but this will have to happen legislatively. Geek Squad finding child porn isn't much different from the photo processors of old finding it.
You hand your photos over to be processed, but unless you had some photo specific issues, a computer tech has no business accessing photographs on your computer. It is an unexpected invasion of your privacy for them to do so, even if though they have the access to do so.
It's like hiring someone to fix your kitchen sink and then stepping out for a bit and finding them going through your bedroom drawers.
I believe that interpretation is standard for U.S. courts. However, it's not in the wording itself.
(Courts of course, must interpret the law beyond the wording; I fully support that. The law is not an algorithm, and also someone must apply the law to individual situations. Otherwise the First Amendment, for example, would protect slander, threats, shouting fire in a crowded theater, etc.)
I don't like that particular interpretation. It implies the 4th Amendment applies only in your windowless basement, with no communication in or out. That isn't realistic, and is especially unrealistic in the age of the Internet.
But that is protected speech, and the SCOTUS case it refers to was overturned long ago because it set a terrible precedent. Holmes used that analogy to support the prosecution and conviction of Charles Schenck under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/foreign-policy-exception-first-ame...
Before you quote the "fire in a theater" precedent again, please go and look up [Schenck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States) as well, since that's the origin of the quote, and because it's apparent that there is very little distance between "speech that will cause immediate harm to people isn't protected" and "speech criticizing wars isn't protected when we're at war" when you're a SCOTUS chief justice.
Best Buy here are pretty much shooting their own trusted basis straight through the heart here.
Paper records don't have a strong tendency to suddenly become unreadable, requiring expert technical assistance. Computerised record storage systems somewhat moreso.