Many Fourth Amendment debates boil down to following argument: if police can already do something in an analog world, why does it matter that new digital technology allows them to do it better, more efficiently, or faster? This Article addresses why digital is, in fact, different when it comes to police surveillance technologies. The Article argues that courts should think of these digital technologies not as enhancements of traditional analog policing practices but as something completely different, warranting a different Fourth Amendment approach. Properly understood, certain digital searches should be legally distinguishable from analog search precedent such that the older cases no longer control the analysis.