The Supreme Court/Phone Record Privacy

[Meta]

Visiting this again, these `lawsuits' are nothing but glorified shakedown attempts whose motive is nothing more than another angle to keep this whole thing over NSA phone number data mining in the news to convince more people that George Bush and the Republicans are looking in your window at night and invading your privacy. In this case, nothing could be further from the truth. These `lawsuits' will be thrown out in short order. The Supreme Court has been over this. Its settled law. Here are the links and the most relevant QUOTE from the Supreme Court concerning the decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=442&invol=735

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746. "

 

[Flyboy]

Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes.

Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the purchases he made, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that credit card users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the purchases they make, since they typically know that they must convey account numbers to the issuing bank and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes.

You could also substitute library, retailer, or pretty much anything. Do we really want to go down the road of "he told somebody, somewhere, so the government's entitled to know?"

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The case you cite is from 1979... we've passed a few laws since then. Here are some relevant ones:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002702----000-.html

[A] provider of . . . electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications . . . ) to any governmental entity.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003121----000-.html

(a) In General.— Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

Here is some more legal analysis you might find relevant:
http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1147467625.shtml

Suffice it to say that under the current 18 U.S.C. 3123, the case you listed would have been a clear violation of the law.

The Supreme Court has been over this. Its settled law.

Settled law? Of the 13 cases that cite this decision, only one follows it and the judges indicate that they do so with reservation (and that case was later overruled on precisely the point you claim your case supports). Of the remainder, 5 do not recognize it based on state law grounds, 1 disapproves, 3 disagree, 1 declines to extend, and 2 distinguish. I don't know how you could possibly consider that settled law, especially when statute now directly contradicts it.