Huh. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2013&#x2F;12&#x2F;what-you-need-to-know-about-the-third-party-doctrine&#x2F;282721&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2013&#x2F;12&#x2F;what-y...</a> says<p>&gt;Importantly, my defense of the third-party doctrine implies an important limit: The doctrine should apply when the third party is a recipient of information, but it should not apply when the third party is merely a conduit for information intended for someone else.<p>Sourced from <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abajournal.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;article&#x2F;the_data_question_should_the_third-party_records_doctrine_be_revisited&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.abajournal.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;article&#x2F;the_data_question...</a><p>The linked argument (which is one half of a debate), argues that the third party doctrine should apply to things that you wouldn&#x27;t be able to hide without third parties. So metadata is covered, because you can&#x27;t hide who you communicate with, but content is not. The data collected here is metadata (who connected to the site), so it seems they would consider it collectable legally.