My understanding of this case has nothing to do with metadata. The communications were captured in full because one party was not a citizen in the US (under national security reasons).
Those communications were then stored and made available in full via keyword based search interfaces, and those later searches were made without first securing a warrant.
I'm not going to bother reading the tea leaves too closely on this one, but I'd put it at least at even odds the supreme court would say the 4th amendment does apply here.
Those communications were then stored and made available in full via keyword based search interfaces, and those later searches were made without first securing a warrant.
I'm not going to bother reading the tea leaves too closely on this one, but I'd put it at least at even odds the supreme court would say the 4th amendment does apply here.