Feds: Mobile Phone Data 'Not Constitutionally Protected' > This is an easy win...

This is an easy win...

So then are the calls themselves and txts/emails also devoid of any reasonable expectation of privacy since we also share those with the provider?

Since the same is true of landlines (which cannot be monitored without a court order... supposedly) one would think that simply sharing the info with the provider as a necessary part of providing the service should not remove the expectation of privacy.

I believe the calls and who you called would be protected like a home phone
text/ data...??// would require some case law research, but it seems a lot of internet activity has not been seen as truely private, hopefully if someone decides to make a federal case out of it, they will choose a instance that screams "Protected speech" (like an email to a lawyer, priest, doctor) where it is obvious that it MUST be protected, rather than something sensational like "I was calling the head of my terrorist cell, for more explosives, but I didn't know the FBI was listening"
I think we want to see several affirmative case law rulings and no "in certain circumstances" rulings on the books.

You contradict yourself. Please explain the difference in a phone call and data and why you say one is protected and the other isnt.

Because at the time of the rulings they weren't considered one and the same (infact the ideas of data wasn't really considered) so they were specific to spoken word.
However, what we might hope for with a really good case, is a ruling that defines/protects freedom of speech as ALL forms of communication with the exceptions (violence towards/ destruction of property/ for purposes of terror or extortion of others) to be extremely limited.

My fear is someone feeling the need to make the semantic point that that it always was all data TECHNICALLY, and therefore should already be covered, would take a weak legal case, instead of the best possible case Specifically describing electronic data tranmission in any form , INCLUDING voice to be potentially protected speech, if the expectation of privacy can be reasonable assumed. *

* You could say smoke signals or semaphore are transmitting data, but you couldn't expect privacy when done in the open spaces where others could plainly see. nor would it be illegal for them to attempt to decode what they saw
However as far as location data, even if you made the attempted gathering and decoding of the message itself, illegal, others could clearly see the location it is sent from.

For both freedom of speech and privacy protection (IMHO these are tightly bound together) the protection is for the CONTENT in context, rather than the medium of transmission.