investigation into a child pornography site on the dark web the st function presented is whether the agencies of the subpoena rather than a warrant violated the th amendment issue is is setting aside the th amendment question does the good faith exception excuse the agent use that subpoena and unless the corporate or is otherwise i'll start with the good faith question now here the district court found that the mildred rd party doctrine was clearly in a political but nevertheless district court found that the agents acted in good faith reliance on decided and the record is an issue here are much different from the bank records at issue and miller and that has to do with the nature of bitcoin which by design is meant to and all transactions of bitcoin are recorded on a decentralized public ledger known as the the information on the wall chain is limited all it shows is basically the fact of the transaction and it will show it does not contain any identifying information about parties to the transaction or what the transactions for unless the parties choose to add that information to the transaction record that appears on the block chain so wild but  that the privacy expectation that society ought to recognize as reasonable this to me when i do transactions with my bank i don't expect them to be putting that out there for the door and yet bank store addition to just the amount and the date of the transaction bitcoin by contrast does not actually drove the identity of the pay and also doesn't even show who the sender of the bitcoin is so if you were to actually look at a particular transaction on the block sharing what you would see is too long alphanumeric sequences that are addresses one from the center and the other for the recipient and that is different from the information that the container checked it's different from the information venit one would have to make an order to the machine a wire transfer and circumstances like that the bank might the fact remains that bitcoin has been around for over a decade now and again this is a situation where technology has basically now faced the wall and there's also the question of how how specific prior precedent let's be in order for a vacant lot on it and did say particularly when circumstances have changed over the years as they have here well similar in the sense that it is subject to the requirements of the bank secrecy act and know your customer regulations and so it is required to collect information from customers such as their name address social security number and so which was the web site and then the amount of the transaction time of the transaction so again this is not a situation where the bank can see to the pay is on the check or knows more detailed information of the parties it's necessary to conduct a wire transfer instead it's largely although not purely anonymous and so that i believe that really does distinguish it from bank records and the district court found that here the rd party daugherty and these are the words of course is the rd party doctrine is clearly in a political and that was because of the nature of the online and  the privacy concerns that are similar to those that were an issue carpenter which circles back to the st question which is whether there was a th amendment violation and work he also said that he didn't know how the similar analysis that the i r s did it self work and in fact referred to as magic but somewhere or another the government identified these addresses and put them in a subpoena but begin because of the privacy focused nature of bitcoin privacy in ones for natural transactions and there's a greater deal of privacy in the use of that going rather than other traditional types of financial transactions and because of that heightened privately interest the government ought to have to get a warrant rather than just use a subpoena to take in that information then less there are any further questions i will see the rest of my let me just ask you want to quote to back about good faith assuming for the sake of the argument that you know binding precedent was not there recklessness or some other kind c n c or besides they mean you know thought they were relying on good press and were not to follow a question i believe of course if the government is if the agents it very well be a that given the shifting nature of technology that's simply relying on decades old precedent involving a very different type of financial track transactions what is a reckless approach rights the st of those steps was the analysis of a an inherently public document the bitcoin public ledger and nd the issuance of the subpoena chair a federally regulated financial institution in this case the virtual currency exchange known as point basis because neither of those d investigative actions infringed upon the defendants  amendment rights and in any event because the defendants acted in good faith this court should deny the appeal now taking those two steps in the same order that opposing counsel isn't applicable for multiple reasons the court's decision is a narrow one as the court itself says the court refers at least twice to the unique nature d of the records that were at issue in carpenter to physically sell site location information and at the same time the court is it seems repeatedly to say it is not displacing miller that the records that were i senate users movement activities and associations and the contents are so concerned with those kinds of records those unique kinds of records that the court found that they enjoyed th amendment protection and that the rd party doctrine did not apply but that one chick is inapplicable in this case because the to me it's very important to distinguish here the defendant keeps arguing that this is somehow about bitcoin the subpoena the coin base was isn't all it's almost incidental that it involves for a moment it is clear on this record putting aside the fact that it was objectively unreasonable for mr pratt koski to expect that he had any sort of privacy interest and one basis on records but mr grech test he admitted in his own written statement and you can find this page six hundred and forty two of the record he said i knew i was going to get caught eventually especially through the document the so called d bitcoin letter and i i emphasize that document must be public it is essential in the operation of the bitcoin system but that document be exposed to the entire world so cooking dinner is in have to or from many of the same reasons as before st of all the ledger does not supply a comprehensive profile of any individual's movements of electronic devices and yet the court expressly d applied to look into it something jim for a precedent but also to the precedent in other circuits that good faith applied to for the agents conduct in this case squarely within the good faith exception in this if the court has no questions then ok my argument simply by just a couple of points first the government says that unlike carpenter there is all the information here is public or as an carpenter was a public information but that's that's not exactly right there was information publicly available information carpenter to the extent that anybody who chose to put carpenter under surveillance and follow him around twenty four hours a day could have followed his movements but just because he effectively shared his movements with anybody who cared to see all of them and see him that didn't mean that the companion did the cell site location information that was kept by the cell phone provider that was also public information a nd point is that the government emphasized greg counts the statement that he knew he was going to be caught that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't have a subjective expectation of privacy and is that going transactions it could very well be that somebody conducting an illegal activity inside their own home might have a sense that eventually they're going what it's probably about to respond to i was about to say what's your response to the government's argument his explanations i knew i would get caught in the center and center does that push against some expectation of privacy of one feels they're go into the home to look for evidence of drug dealing but someone might say i know i'm going to get part of eventually because he has customers coming in and out of his house and might know that eventually one of those customers is going to get caught by the police a subjective expectation of privacy in an area that's protected by the force of minutes for your briefing and argument today the case will be submitted and we'll share an opinion thank you for shake your participation in the arguments they sa