court to deny the motion to suppress the pen register evidence should be reversed the internet is constitutionally distinct from telephones in a way that makes this case significantly more analogous to carpenter than smith and because of these distinction individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their eyes the connection i see connections are meaningfully different from telephones and similar to some site location information in terms of two related categories of criteria  not apply if you all conveyances the data to a rd party especially in the digital age in carpenter the conveyance of self hate location data to a person's cell phone provider was not truly voluntary because of the pervasive however we argue that because that information can be readily converted into the name of a web site the name of a website should be considered content itself how would that differ from a phone call for example if you have or you're using a pen register on a phone and you get numbers that were dialed out you could quickly trace that number and find out if it was a bookstore or a holidays it's always available as a limit repertoire of information unlike telephones which must be manned by individuals but where would you people cell phones and their cell phones today are i don't have the data or the numbers but i think it's a hard argument without that data to say that the internet is used more than cellphones and cellphones still fall under smith yes your honor but that's only when people are making phone calls with their cell phone our argument is that people are using the internet in a way that is qualitatively different from the way people are making phone calls  frequently and the quality of that internet communication is very different from we've knowledge that there is little telephones can do that the internet cannot do both can be used for various tasks including communication however there are many things people use the internet for that stuff cannot be used for and perhaps more important even for things people could use the phone or they often don't due to the comfort and convenience of the internet for example people use the internet to continue to read product reviews engage in entertainment and visit needs for on but if the pen register didn't record in the content which i think you agreed at the beginning it didn't that it only recorded the ip address in the routing information if it doesn't record content then why does this argument matter you get the name again the pen register doesn't give you the name of the website the pen register gives you an ip address and routing information you would have to take the next step to find the name of the website just like a pen register on the phone you would have to take the next step to find out who the particular phone number that you were calling belong to and that's covered under snow it's true that the government would have to take the additional steps to look at the website associated with the ip address at the st this is not a very onerous that anybody can look up ip address information easily on the internet and reverse engineer it to a doma government would have to go through the extra step of looking up this information and translating it into g p s coordinates but the supreme court made clear and carpenter that the problem with that is that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their physical movements and the ability to look up those coordinates enabled law enforcement to track their physical movements which is very different than being able to work backwards and figure out of particularly in the language of carpenter do you base that argument on because the supreme court was pretty specific that carpenter was there oh and they really emphasized the whole of an individual physical movements they didn't say movements they said physical movements yes your honor but the court also said that they do care about what that location is capable of revealing about a person's personal professional explicitly states that is holding does not disturb conventional surveillance techniques and it gives the example of security cameras in particular by naming what it does not discard carpenter seem to acknowledge that at least some forms of novel says cited by the government are factually distinguishable in that they deal with a person privacy interest in the location capable of or being revealed by their own ip address we are asking the court to physical home address post carpenter the rd party doctrine becomes just one consideration in a larger balancing test rather than just positive factor and here the consideration li's in our favor applying the holding  smith to a case like this based solely on the fact that they both deal with pen registers would be like saying a car is the same say ship just because they're both forms of transportation the question now becomes whether individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their ip connection which brings me to my nd point i think an action are also constitutionally distinct because they're capable of revealing significantly more personal information than telephone and they also generate a massive amount we're asking this court to reverse the conviction under count ten of the indictment because no rational jury could have found the element of family once properly interpreted beyond a reasonable doubts in count head of the indictment the government outside there was little evidence of the trial record and no rational jury for the found the damage because ultimately provide all today we did not have very much present in this trial so do you agree that that would be a sufficient basis to meet the legal test but there just wasn't enough evidence to say what your argument is that's correct and that wasn't a big part of the trial because whenever the government talked about september  of information that was mr o and password change and to granger the information was still easily available elsewhere there's no evidence in the record that it prohibited their consumers or any other employees american saying it and the government seems  threshold question is the same if the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the ip addresses that he transmitted to his internet service provider and the answer that question is no for the same reason that the supreme court held that telephone users have no privacy interest in the telephone number they dial and share with the phone company like phone numbers ip address reveals the fact of an internet connection and back and i dress in just that it's an address as a sequence of letters and numbers that are scientists every device on the internet so that those two devices everywhere wireless had an express policy that the government that the defendant cited in front out regarding his reasonable expectation of privacy saying that they wouldn't share  analysis here i think that the policy that you are wireless had that it will not track or monitor your online browsing activity that was are we referring to the ad service provider didn't say anything about you know we're not you wouldn't comply with a court order requiring us to turn over your your ip connection records i mean just simply said everywhere wireless itself is not monitoring your internet activity so i think that there's a factual distinction  of privacy and the ip addresses that they need to send are transmit to their that service provider in order to connect to the internet and the nd circuit took a very hard look at the exact type of ip registers as used in this to rd party doctrine and smithy maryland intact and really the touchstone of carpenter was the person's right to privacy and their physical movement and that privacy right is just not implicated here the devices the at issue carpenter and i've had ministers here and so i think based on those factual reasons it's not surprising that courts including the st circuit in others have unanimously declined to apply carpenter outside  statutory framework that allowed it to obtain that information without a warrant which is the pen register act it's a mid application it's certified relevant and it came to court order and certifying relevant it didn't just parrot the language o some explain facts about the victim company granger about the defendant former employment there about the connection between the ip address of the building and the previous hacking incident and short the government ac the government should have got a warrant to obtain itself that location information in light of carpenter but the court declined to suppress those records because the government attained them before coverage it was issued and by relying on the store communications act which allowed the government to obtain that information without a warrant that's what happened in this case to the government can use records pursuant to the pen mr act there was no case law much less controlling case law calling system or information and the jury was properly instructed on that definition and the jury recently concluded from the trial evident that the government method of showing damage and there are several several ways that the government did this the st was that the jury could have easily concluded that by resetting the high level employees password the defendant essentially froze that that high level employee out of the system i could and i think that because the jury heard evidence about this employee that he was a top tier network support analyst he was issued a granger laptop that he was allowed to take home with them and work remotely to help troubleshoot issues with the network that might arise outside of business hours or when he's at home after all there were tens of thousands of users on the network and so it was it makes sense that the jury would infer that when the defendant reset this top tier employees password without permission early in the morning that conduct lock that employee out of the system and impair the availability of keep to that employ another way that the jury could have found damage here and they could have found that the defendant conduct impaired the integrity of the data because the jury heard last the trial evidence that granger maintained large databases that stored all the user name and password combination for the key stuck employees and that those databases also stored the privileges or access rights for each employee other words whether an employee had full or restricted access to the database litigants should continue to challenge the concept of constitutionality of statute notwithstanding the good faith excess nd the government seems to focus largely on the idea that carpenter is narrowly focused on location information