> False, the warrant asked for data for all devices in a geographic location, they were then trying to use that data to find to individuals. Page 17: Page 17:

> False, the warrant asked for data for all devices in a geographic location, they were then trying to use that data to find to individuals. Page 17: Page 17: "(a) [...] Google will not, in this step, provide the Google account identifiers (e.g. example@gmail.com) associated with the devices" "(b) [..] The government may, at its discretion, identify a subset of the devices" "(c) [..] Google will then disclose to the government the Google account identifier associated with the devices identified by government" The warrant specifically addresses Google. > The courts rarely reject any warrant requests, this should give everyone pause for concern This could also mean law enforcement generally only issues warrants when there is probable cause and legal basis to do so; such as in this case. This warrant being unsealed and public also means the public can review it. I am absolutely concerned about the encroachment of civil liberties, constitutional rights, and privacy. This specific example is not a battle I would disagree on, or fight.