Case 1:20-mc-00036-JEB-ZMF Document 31 Filed 12/03/21 Page 10 of 14 would seem to be most readily understood as the copy of a message that a sender types into his email client,” and even the recipient receives only a copy of that message. Id. (emphasis in original). “Put differently, all copies of an email held by a recipient’s email service . . . are ‘copies,’ rather than ‘originals.’” Id. The same appears true for copies of the private communications at issue here. This reading of “backup purposes,” moreover, comports with the SCA’s legislative context. Congress enacted the SCA to fill a gap in privacy protections for electronic stored communications, which were not protected by either existing federal statutes or the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 782 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 99-647, at 18 (1986) and S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 2 (1986)); see also Kerr, 72 Geo. Wash. L. Rev., at 1209–13. The uncertainty associated with this gap generated three problems Congress sought to address: 1) “it may unnecessarily discourage potential customers from using such [innovative communications] systems”; 2) it might “encourage unauthorized users to obtain access to communications to which they are not a party”; and 3) “most important,” it may lead to “the gradual erosion of a precious right [to privacy].” H.R. Rep. No. 99-647, at 19; see also S. Rep. No. 99-541, at 5. In enacting the SCA, “Congress wanted to protect electronic communications that are configured to be private, such as email and private electronic bulletin boards,” Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868, 875 (9th Cir. 2002), in order to avoid hindering the adoption of new communications technologies. Interpreting Congress’s definition of “for purposes of backup protection” to include provider-deleted communications is in keeping with these objectives. The counterfactual illustrates the point. Under a definition of “electronic storage” that excluded provider-deleted communications, an ECS like Facebook could avoid the SCA’s disclosure prohibition simply by 10