This, folks, is a VERY big deal. A Federal District Court Judge has held that the collection of cell phone "meta-data" violates the Fourth Amendment.
The key to the case is its disucssion of Smith v. Maryland. The Smith case has formed the basis for the legality of many of the NSA programs. But as the Judge here rightly notes, the Smith decision is hardly on point.
In Smith v Maryland the Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for the Government to install a "pen register" without a search warrant. A Pen Register records information such as the time as call was made and who it was made to.
The most important part of the Smith case is is here:
Given a pen register's limited capabilities, therefore, petitioner's argument that its installation and use constituted a "search" necessarily rests upon a claim that he had a "legitimate expectation of privacy" regarding the numbers he dialed on his phone.
This claim must be rejected. First, we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. In fact, pen registers and similar devices are routinely used by telephone companies "for the purposes of checking billing operations, detecting fraud, and preventing violations of law."
The reason today's decision is such a bid deal is that it holds that Smith is not applicable to the NSA program.
The part of the decision to read is on page 45. The court notes that the evolution of technology has simply rendered the Smith holding inapplicable. It is one thing to record the details of one person's call. It is quite another to create an enormous database of call data over an extended period of time. In such an instance the District Judge holds that citizen's DO have a reasonable expecation of privacy, and as a result the NSA program is unconstitutional.
Essentially, The District Court makes 4 arguments in support of the proposition that Smith is not applicable:
1. In the Smith case the tracking occured only a series of days. The judge contrasted this to the NSA - which is keeping data for 5 years.
2. In Smith it was the phone company that collected this specific information on request. This was contrasted with the NSA's daily receipt of millions of phone call records
3. "The almost 'Orwellian technology aenables the Government to store and analyze the phone metadata...is unlike anything that could have been concieved of in 1979"
4. The nature and quantity of the information contained iin people's metadata is much greater, aw well."
This is the correct decision. It will be appealed through the Circuit and finally to the Supreme Court - where it's future is uncertain to say the least.
But at least someone in the Federal Judiciary has stood up.
Thank you Snowden.