ention ▁period ▁for ▁phone ▁records . ▁Both ▁propos als ▁share ▁the ▁introduction ▁of ▁a ▁special ▁advoc ate ▁to ▁promote ▁priv acy ▁interests ▁before ▁the ▁F IS A ▁court . ▁ ▁Jud ici ary ▁ ▁In ▁April ▁ 2 0 1 4 , ▁The ▁Washington ▁Post ▁reported ▁that ▁some ▁federal ▁jud ges ▁holding ▁low - level ▁positions ▁had ▁been ▁b alk ing ▁at ▁swe eping ▁requests ▁by ▁law ▁enfor cement ▁for ▁cell phone ▁and ▁other ▁sensitive ▁personal ▁data . ▁The ▁Post ▁called ▁it ▁" a ▁small ▁but ▁growing ▁fa ction , ▁including ▁jud ges ▁in ▁Texas , ▁Kansas , ▁New ▁York ▁and ▁Pennsylvania ," ▁and ▁said ▁the ▁jud ges ▁de emed ▁the ▁requests ▁over ly ▁broad ▁and ▁at ▁odd s ▁with ▁basic ▁constitution al ▁rights . ▁Although ▁some ▁r ul ings ▁were ▁over turn ed , ▁said ▁the ▁Post , ▁their ▁dec isions ▁have ▁sh aped ▁when ▁and ▁how ▁investig ators ▁can ▁se ize ▁information ▁detail ing ▁the ▁locations , ▁communic ations ▁and ▁online ▁histor ies ▁of ▁Americans . ▁Albert ▁G id ari ▁Jr ., ▁a ▁partner ▁at ▁Per kins ▁Co ie ▁who ▁represents ▁technology ▁and ▁tele communic ations ▁companies , ▁told ▁the ▁Post ▁that ▁these ▁jud ges ▁" don ' t ▁want ▁to ▁be ▁the ▁ones ▁who ▁appro ve ▁an ▁order ▁that ▁later ▁becomes ▁public ▁and ▁embar rass ing … . ▁Nob ody ▁lik es ▁to ▁be ▁character ized ▁as ▁a ▁rub ber ▁stamp ." ▁According ▁to ▁the ▁Post , ▁some ▁legal ▁obser vers ▁have ▁called ▁this ▁" the ▁Mag istr ates '