There are situations in which technology changes things and the law has adapted (e.g. using an infrared camera to look into a house from a public location is a 4th amendment violation), but this is not one of those situations. At least when it comes to call metadata, technology really has nothing to do with it. Whether AT&T records it on magnetic tape or quantum bits, it's still their records, generated by their equipment, kept for their purposes, that you never have access to. These characteristics aren't an artifact of the technology, they're reflective of the fundamental nature of the information in question: it's AT&T's information about you, not your information.
At least when it comes to call metadata, technology really has nothing to do with it
I'm not sure this is logically possible. The metadata retention by the telco's is an artifact of their business process (minimize fraudulent billing liability)[1]. A similar process did not exist for mail until the government mandated and paid for it. Now, every piece of mail is photgraphed ("to collect the 'metadata' ")and the images are recorded. That notwithstanding, the entire notion of such meta-data is strictly an artifact of technology. There is no analogue in pure verbal speech, in other words.
[1] There is no need for them to retain it or to otherwise "posess" it in an-other-than-temporary-like-snapchat-way.
The fact that metadata is generated and collected may be an issue of technology, but that doesn't change the essential characteristic of whether it's your data, or data about you. E.g., in 1776, there were no video cameras in public places. But technology doesn't change the essential character observing you in a public place versus in a private place.
> That notwithstanding, the entire notion of such meta-data is strictly an artifact of technology. There is no analogue in pure verbal speech, in other words.
Sure there is! Before mail was scanned for delivery purposes, you could always have called a postal worker to testify about what he read on the outside of the envelope. Before store cameras, you could have always called a store worker to testify about when he saw 001sky enter and leave the store and what he saw 001sky buy. Before automated call tracking, you could always have called a phone operator to testify about when 001sky placed a call. Technology makes it easier to collect metadata, but it does not turn "data" into "metadata."
You make a strong case for certain points here and I don't dismiss them. But I also think several points are blurred. That is perhaps inevitable and that is the point I am making. for example
(1) That doesn't change the essential characteristic of whether it's your data, or data about you. The datacard in my FLIR camera is (a) my data; and (b) about you. Neither of these qualifications are insurmountable. The courts have not tripped over this technicality, because the <purpose> of using the FLIR instrument is not considered a reasonable use of technology, when it has the impact of making surveilance <unavoidable> per-se.
(2) The post office example. This raises two issues: (a) technology; and (b) scale. Mail by post is distinct from verbal speech and generates metadata because of the need to address an envelope. Its low technology, but this is an artifact of the technology. With respect to scale, what is 'reasonably' to collect is a function of resource expenditure. As the cost of collection decreases, the amount of data 'reasonably' collected <increases>. But that is beside the point of where my <reasonable expectation of privacy> has changed or stayed the same.
(3) Scale, generally speaking. eg: Technology makes it easier to collect metadata, but it does not turn "data" into "metadata." The express purpose of the meta-data programs is to turn <meta> data into <data>. This is sort of the fundamental question at the heart of the matter, from a constitutional perspective. The purpose of these systems is to surveil beyond the scope of what would normally be perceived as reasonable. In that regard, it is aking to using FLIR to make surveilance <unavoidable per-se>. Or at least that is an argument which should be ajudicated. Perhaps by legislation, as well, once a more coherent framework has been set forth by the courts. In otherwords, now that these 'edge cases' are being swept up into the norm.
