[sinkspur]

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.

Supreme Court decides phone records belong to phone company.

[dirtboy]

First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial,

Except for the fact that Verizon has a privacy policy, and it states that calling information will be provided to government upon presentation of a subpeona. And there was no subpeona here.

Gawd, you call this a defense?

[Realism]

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.

So I would assume that that would apply to ANY service; Banking, Credit Card, Cable, Internet, TV, Public facilities (including roadways etc. Any time personal information is divulged to a second party it becomes public property or when private belongings enter public property they are no longer private. Sound about right?

[FroedrickVonFreepenstein]

Thanks for the link. I read it and I have to admit that if the NSA is only collecting phone nubmers and date/timestamps as they say, then they can use this ruling to call thier activities legal. I won't hold my breath waiting for the MSM to address this decision.

That said, I have to agree with the dissenters on this decision who find that 4th Ammendment protections do extend to such records.