You didn't give an example? Unless you mean the hypothetical at the top of searching for terrorist organizations? In which, my point against that is that scop

You didn't give an example? Unless you mean the hypothetical at the top of searching for terrorist organizations? In which, my point against that is that scope of data returned should be considered. And I fully expect if you are sending money to a terrorist organization, that will not be "protected speech," despite money being fungible for speech... That is, the fact that so few accounts were hit by the warrant shows to me that it was a better warrant to grant. If you are wanting it codified that size of result list should be a consideration, for example, I would support that. If you are saying we need better controls, I'm all for it. To completely disallow this data, though, feels weirdly misguided. I'm guessing they have already run phone records for all calls to the residence that was burned, such that that is allowed with warrant. Why is the search extra protected? I'll again state that I'm all for strengthening privacy and security of people. I'm just not seeing this case being the place to make that battle. Nor do I think it is reasonable to make it illegal for police to get the data. If you want the data to not be used, I'd actually rather support making it illegal for companies to store it.