I think this really comes down to what is reasonable. And there is no hard, provable, answer to that. To me this is no different to searching my room (my priv

I think this really comes down to what is reasonable. And there is no hard, provable, answer to that. To me this is no different to searching my room (my private space) when you suspect my room mate of a crime. Is it right that my privacy is invaded? No. It is sadly necessary because unfortunately, though not my fault, there might be evidence etc there? Yes. Another analogy is if I worked somewhere and something was stolen, I would expect the police to receive my name. I am no theft, but I was in the place at the time, so it's not unreasonable that the police might want to at least try to speak to me right? I can always decline to co-operate but maybe I saw something? Or maybe a quick search reveals I am selling the same item that was stolen on my ebay account and suddenly the crime is solved? But the only way for the police to start work is to know who was there. I also think this sort of invasion is very small: searching my person is a bigger violation, searching my dwelling too. Merely discovering I was at a place is hardly a violation at all, no one would call it that if a witness named me as there so why not a mobile phone company? I agree 100% about the militarisation of the police though... As a brit, I wonder how much of that is just poor policy, and how much is due to a toxic mix of "the right to bear arms" and drug prohibition. What do you think?