| If we accept that premise (which seems to be the most controversial aspect of this case), and accept that the prosecution need unilateral access to all database records, then the judge's restricted timeframe fits as part of a good ruling. Also sealing any extraneous information is a good step. However, there is still something lacking. Setting a precedent here is important, and if the past is a guide, the precedent would be abused. The only thing I can think of to discourage future wide-reaching warrants of this kind, is compensation. For every individual who has their rights violated, in the pursuit of others, compensation is usually able to be granted, in most cases. So, tie it to this case. Such a wide-reaching warrant may be granted in difficult circumstances, if every individual whose privacy is ignored, and has no guilt in the investigated matter, are immediately granted compensation. It doesn't even have to be much, because the cost of such a warrant would scale with the number of people they are ignoring. Disclaimer: No longer a lawyer. No experience in US law. |