obtains such data from the telephone companies, and then probes into it to find links between callers and potential terrorists, this further use of the data was not even a search under the Fourth Amendment, concluding that the controlling precedent is Smith v. Maryland, saying "Smith's bedrock holding is that an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties." The American Civil Liberties Union declared on January 2, 2014, that it will appeal the ruling that NSA bulk phone record collection is legal. "The government has a legitimate interest in tracking the associations of suspected terrorists, but tracking those associations does not require the government to subject every citizen to permanent surveillance," deputy ACLU legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. See also Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Fourth Amendment Protection Act NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)#Fourth Amendment issues Parallel construction Privacy laws of the United States Special needs exception Section Eight of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms subpoena ad testificandum subpoena duces tecum Notes Citations References External links CRS Annotated Constitution: Fourth Amendment, Cornell University 1791 in American law 1791 in American politics 04 Government documents of the United States Police legislation + Searches and seizures United States criminal constitutional law