In the world of information technology, there is a concept called context switching, and it means, generally, that you are changing the rules of behavior for the program. Edit mode is a good example. This is what came to mind when reading a legal analysis of a case where the government is trying to force tech firms to give them data stored on servers overseas.
At the crux of this particular analysis was the acceptance (as a matter of settled case law) that the U. S. Constitution is contextual. Basically, it applies only to citizens, only within the borders of the U. S. territory, and that when it doesn’t apply, the government doesn’t have to follow the rules and constraints that the constitution (and therefore any derivative rules and constraints) if they are onerous. It is, the 4th amendment doesn’t apply because the server is outside the U. S., and concurrently, that if that data doesn’t belong to a citizen it also doesn’t apply no matter where the server is.
As someone who thinks of the Constitution as the operating parameters of the government, an argument wherein the government is asserting that the parameters that define its legitimacy somehow are eligible for context switching without calling into question that legitimacy is absurd. I’ve naively believed that the Constitution is about how the government may act towards people not about how it may act towards Americans or how it may act only inside U. S. territory.
Citizenship is so cheaply given, that it doesn’t seem equitable to impart such prejudicial benefit simply because of allegiance. Nor does it seem fit to say that the government is ungoverned when acting extraterritoriality.