> I'm surprised that so many here justify dragnet surveillance (let's call the method by its proper name). I'd agree if it was the government that was survieli

> I'm surprised that so many here justify dragnet surveillance (let's call the method by its proper name). I'd agree if it was the government that was survieling location. Instead, it's lots of people who buy mobile devices and agree to be survieled by a software company so their phone can do stuff for them. The government is asking for a reasonable amount of factual data from that non-government company. This is just bog standard police work. >By definition, hundreds of innocent persons will now be in an FBI database and will be investigated. People that were proximate to the scene of the crime will likely be questioned, but that doesn't mean they will be investigated as a suspect. The idea of a database that you can never get out of that will lead to you being targeted for enhanced law enforcement is something that shouldn't exist. But it is a different issue than a bog-standard arson investigation. Incidentally, arson is a really awful crime. It kills a lot of innocent bystanders and often destroys properties that weren't intended to be damaged by the arsonist. I've experienced this twice in my own life, where someone destroyed their property (once to prevent the bank from foreclosing, and once to get a big insurance check) with fire, and ended up killing neighbors when their house was ignited by the fire started by the arsonist.