These are good points, and supported by the court explicitly stating that they’re not making a judgement on all such warrants, but on the constitutionality of u

These are good points, and supported by the court explicitly stating that they’re not making a judgement on all such warrants, but on the constitutionality of using evidence gathered this way. I think this evidence cannot be used constitutionally, but practically I might be mistaking the application of this ruling to “good” warrants as well as “bad” ones. This might be a well-directed warrant which supports the public good with statistics satisfying a reasonable observer. But, can we tell that apart from a “bad” warrant in which we do not have access to refuting statistics? Honest question, should the search engine’s legal department be the only ones who can make the counter argument.