I'm surprised that not requiring a warrant for content is a thing. My understanding was that warrants being required for content was statutory. I took a look a

I'm surprised that not requiring a warrant for content is a thing. My understanding was that warrants being required for content was statutory. I took a look at Snapchat's law enforcement guide[0], and it does say that they will turn over everything they have with only a subpoena. However, the records they say they will provide all look like metadata, not content. The guide mentions "Log of the last 200 snaps sent and received (similar to phone record)", but I believe they are talking about metadata associated with the snaps, not the pictures themselves. "Phone records", in this context, refers to phone metadata (logs containing numbers called, etc.). This Techcrunch post[1] also says that Snapchat deletes photos from its servers as soon as they are delivered. If the reason that Snapchat doesn't require warrants is that they keep fewer records than other providers, and don't have the type of records for which a warrant is required, that should not be considered a privacy negative for them. The EFF's report also claims that AT&T and Comcast don't require a warrant for content. However, that isn't because either company has been implicated in actually handing over content without a warrant; it's just because they don't explicitly mention requiring a warrant. But, again, as far as I understand, requiring a warrant for content is in the statutes.[2] [0] https://info.publicintelligence.net/SnapchatLawEnforcementGuide.pdf https://info.publicintelligence.net/SnapchatLawEnforcementGu... [1] http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/09/actually-snapchat-photos-are-just-as-deleted-as-any-other-file-you-trash/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/09/actually-snapchat-photos-ar... [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703