According to the Guardian article that broke the news, "[a] 2005 court ruling judged that cell site location data – the nearest cell tower a phone was connected to – was also transactional data, and so could potentially fall under the scope of the order."[1]
IANAL but it seems clear that cell site data could be included (since it's held to be transactional data), but it would be limited to the towers connected to when making and ending calls, not a complete timeline. [2]
The reading is hard. A careful reading could go either way. The fact is historical cell site location data could arguably fall under the order but does not necessarily.
The question in my mind is what is the purpose for the order. If it is to compel Verizon to do something they don't want to do, then maybe it wouldn't, but if it is to give Verizon cover for what they want to do anyway, then it very well might.
Comments
According to the Guardian article that broke the news, "[a] 2005 court ruling judged that cell site location data – the nearest cell tower a phone was connected to – was also transactional data, and so could potentially fall under the scope of the order."[1]
IANAL but it seems clear that cell site data could be included (since it's held to be transactional data), but it would be limited to the towers connected to when making and ending calls, not a complete timeline. [2]
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-record...
2. http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/1948.pdf
The reading is hard. A careful reading could go either way. The fact is historical cell site location data could arguably fall under the order but does not necessarily.
The question in my mind is what is the purpose for the order. If it is to compel Verizon to do something they don't want to do, then maybe it wouldn't, but if it is to give Verizon cover for what they want to do anyway, then it very well might.