Whereas the Wiretap Act governs the interception of communications “content[],”31 the separate federal Pen Register Act governs the acquisition of non-content “dialing, routing, addressing, [or] signaling information.”32 As the House of Representatives noted in its Report regarding the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, “the statutorily prescribed line between a communication’s contents and non-content information[] [is] a line identical to the constitutional distinction drawn by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith v. Maryland.”33 Since Smith, location identifiers have classically been associated with non-content “means of establishing communication.”34 Nevertheless, the District Court’s 31 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4); see also id. § 2511(1)(a). 32 18 U.S.C. §§ 3121(c), 3127(3)-(4). Where surveillance by law enforcement is concerned, “[t]he difference in the standards for court approval of content-capturing wiretaps and non-content-capturing pen registers is dramatic—content information is protected by a ‘super-warrant,’ non-content information by a rubber stamp.” Matthew J. Tokson, The Content/Envelope Distinction in Internet Law, 50 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2105, 2120 (2009). 33 Report of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, H. Rep. No. 107-236, at 53, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-107hrpt236/pdf/CRPT107hrpt236-pt1.pdf. 34 Smith, 442 U.S. at 741 (quoting New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. at 167). 19