[pclmulqdq]

Stingrays and other technical things that people could do are a lot more expensive than just asking Google or Verizon for their records. Also, that kind of indiscriminate tracking is a fourth amendment violation, so the government actually can't do it legally (and the evidence gathered by such a technique can get thrown out in court). Both of those things make a big difference.

The right people to go after are the ones who are not bound by the fourth amendment and who are creating a huge pool of data that is available for the government to grab. Technical solutions that collate data have been very useful tools for government overreach over the last century. IBM's census tracking system in the 1930's is a very well-known example of this sort of technology: a well-meaning innovation that efficiently organized Germany's demographic data and made it accessible... to the Nazis who wanted to find Jews.

Here's an example of the government using data from big tech that they would never have been able to collect themselves due to the fourth amendment: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/11/12/18089090/amazon-ech...

Here are the stats on subpoenas, search warrants, and court orders that Google has received, showing how they have found over 80% of them to be not unreasonable: https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?use...

If you were able to fight a subpoena for your own records (for example, because you owned the data instead of Google), I promise you that percentage would be a lot lower, solely because the incentives are different. Google doesn't particularly care about protecting you. Google cares a lot more than that about protecting its status with politicians. What this means is that they will do the minimum possible review on a subpoena for data on your account to not get sued by you.