2 ms·
That is most definitely incorrect. The third party doctrine is shaky judicial construction at best (see, for instance, US v Warshak for the latest example and a
by magicalist 13y ago
That is most definitely incorrect. The third party doctrine is shaky judicial construction at best (see, for instance, US v Warshak for the latest example and a case many can now use to justify holding off court orders until the Supreme Court or Congress weighs in on the ECPA), it is not held universally (wiretaps being the longest existent example), and Smith v Maryland would only get you things like call metadata at best anyways. Certainly not server contents. And certainly not with an indefinite gag-order on the service provider.
- dmourati 13y agoThe sixth circuit court of appeals can decide whatever it wants but they can in no way overturn a decision of the Supreme Court.
- einhverfr 13y agoBut as I noted separately, widespread collection of call detail records is not really at issue in Smith v. Maryland. Rather it sits at the intersection of Jones v. United States, United States v. Knotts, and California Bankers Association v. Shultz. If you read these (I noted them in order from most recent to oldest) and read/carefully count votes on concurring and dissenting opinions (after having read Smith v. Maryland), I think you could be pardoned for thinking the Supreme Court had said a bunch of things about this, much in conflict with a bunch of other things.