Discovery is subject to oversight. The court signs off on the subpoena and your lawyer gets to argue why it's not valid before it does. No, "because I dislike you" isn't going to fly. But if you're in a legitimate feud with someone and they can make a real case that your location information is important evidence for the court to see, sure.
You can allege anything you want in court and proceed exactly like someone having a "legitimate feud." You might be punished later for making up a bunch of bogus claims, but you still got the information you shouldn't have.
This is especially effective if you're a powerful person or corporation and can find a litigant willing to sacrifice their own assets and/or freedom to pursue a fake lawsuit on your behalf. The justice system is subject to Sybil attacks like any other system.
Again, no, because courts don't as a general rule treat with "bogus" claims. If you try to lie to get a subpoena, the other counsel calls bullshit and the judge agrees. This just isn't a thing. This is another angle of the "Hackers Think The Law is a Computer" disconnect. People don't try to hack the courts like this because they tend to get disbarred if they try.
My personal experience is inconsistent with your broad confidence in the justice system's resilience to abuse, and in fact is one of the main reasons why I retired from active practice as a litigator. I've found that concepts like "bullshit" in civil law have many shades of gray, especially when you're dealing with a genuinely angry client seeking justice.
If your experience is closer to the truth, then maybe the tech industry should retain lawyers to redesign our security systems!
In theory, yes. But we wouldn't even be having this conversation if we had a functioning legal system, government agencies that respected people's rights, and government lawyers that didn't "interpret" constitutional protections out of existence behind closed doors.
I believe you that you feel that way. Your phrasing however is awfully close to a "no true scotsman" argument, because you seem to be talking about the USA, which by all means and measures still has a functioning legal system -- despite attacks from all sides, inlcuding major political parties. It produces predictable outcomes according to law and fundamental rights are respected.
According to the World Justice Project [1] the USA is in spot 26 of 150+ examined nations. Worse than most European countries, but far better than most of the world. And while the general "rule of law" trend for the USA is declining for the last decade, checks on government power have actually improved in recent years.
If you don't believe me or WJP numbers, I invite you to travel abroad and spend some time in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Egypt, or even Hungary. If that's too much to ask, just try doing business there. I was involved in projects in some of the above mentioned countries and I tell you, the contrast is startling.
After the end of Roe v Wade, do you really want these nine justices, all of whom iirc said Roe v Wade is the settled law of the land, to decide whether you are a citizen?
Remember that the prosecution says anything no matter how trivial can be used to revoke citizenship.
Does your HN username count as a nickname? Prosecution might say yes. And again this isn't about you or me. It is the same thing as dragnet surveillance. I don't matter but somewhere in our nation or beyond the next MLK or the next great activist will be born and I want them to be able to develop and achieve their goals without being caught up in gotchas.
It is for that person probably not yet born that I don't want a two tiered citizenship system.
Context from the New York Times
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about the failure to disclose an embarrassing childhood nickname. Justice Elena Kagan said she was a “little bit horrified to know that every time I lie about my weight it has those kinds of consequences.”
Mr. Parker said the law applied to all false statements, even trivial ones.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said it was “rather surprising that the government of the United States thinks” that the naturalization laws should be “interpreted in a way that would throw into doubt the citizenship of vast percentages of all naturalized citizens.”
Chief Justice Roberts added that the government’s position would give prosecutors extraordinary power. “If you take the position that not answering about the speeding ticket or the nickname is enough to subject that person to denaturalization,” he said, “the government will have the opportunity to denaturalize anyone they want.”
No court anywhere is going to get all the way to discovery in a case without representation, that's silly. If you're really in a situation where you're sued by Real Lawyers and refuse to respond like that, what will end up happening is some kind of default judgement. Discovery only happens once people start arguing about stuff.
Though there is a corrolary: occasionally you'll see suits filed against John/Jane Doe defendants. The plaintiff knows they've been wronged and wants justice, but they don't know who the entities are they need to sue for some reason. In those circumstances you can get subpoenas issued to produce e.g. phone logs or security footage, etc... in order to move the case along.