Case5:15-xr-90304-HRL Document30 Filed07/29/15 Page39 of 46 1 not seek a new application” in order to obtain historical CSLI associated with a target cell phone 2 from any of the dozens of other cellular service providers listed in the application. Schenk Decl. 3 ¶ 1a. This is true whether the government’s basis for requesting historical CSLI from a separate 4 provider is local number portability or roaming. See id.; App. ¶ 2 & n.2. The government’s 5 application therefore authorizes the government to obtain CSLI from a plethora of other cellular 6 service providers, such as Cellular One, Sprint, and T-Mobile, to whom the target cell phone users 7 could not possibly have provided their consent. 8 9 10 policies for each Telephone Service Provider listed in the government’s application,” ECF No. 24, the government’s response illustrated the implausibility of user consent: 15 If in its Order for Supplemental Filings, this Court is seeking the most recent privacy policies for each Telephone Service Provider listed in the government’s application, rather than the privacy policies for each Telephone Service Provider for each of the Target Devices, that request is nearly without bound, essentially requiring the privacy policies for every service provider in the country. Therefore, if the Court, in fact, wants the privacy policies for any and all telephone service providers, the government requests additional time to comply with this request, assuming compliance is possible. 16 ECF No. 29 at 2 (emphases added). How is it, then, that a cell phone user has consented to 17 government acquisition of CSLI when, to do so, she would have had to read the privacy policy of 18 “every service provider in the country,” a task the government itself admits might not even be 19 “possible”? 11 United States District Court Northern District of California In fact, when the Court requested that the government provide “the most recent privacy 12 13 14 20 As for the privacy policies submitted by the government, the Court finds that they are 21 sufficiently vague as to the nature and scope of the CSLI sought that subscribers cannot be said to 22 have consented to that information’s release to the government. Verizon’s policy is especially 23 vague. Verizon tells its subscribers, “We collect information about your use of our products, 24 services and sites. Information such as . . . wireless location . . . .” Verizon Policy. “We may,” 25 Verizon says, “disclose information that individually identifies our customers or identifies 26 customer devices in certain circumstances, such as: to comply with valid legal process including 27 28 39 Case No. 15-XR-90304-HRL-1(LHK) ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR HISTORICAL CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION