https://www.eff.org/files/2014/06/26/fbopening_brief_in_re_381_search_warrants.pdf I thought warrants have to be specific and not a fishing expedition - but hell if you don't even know that your stuff is searched because of gag order - then it's awfully hard to fight it on an individual basis - isn't it? Oh yeah - it's because "courts have found that a person does not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in information transferred to a third party," "The Fourth Amendment requires that even for search warrants predicated on a showing of probable cause, the warrant must 'particularly' describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized. Searches of digital devices must similarly be circumscribed and tied to the predicate justifying the search." The existence of the warrant may be a necessary, but not always sufficient, barrier to a finding that a search was unreasonableand the imposition of civil liability. In Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co.,[4] the Supreme Court ruled that the FTC, while having been granted a broad subpoena power, did not have the right to a general "fishing expedition" into the private papers, to search both relevant and irrelevant, hoping that something would come up. Justice Holmes ruled that this would go against "the spirit and the letter" of the Fourth Amendment Because Facebook cannot challenge the constitutionality of the warrants on appeal from any criminal trial that may ensue (as Facebook would not be a defendant), deeming the denial of Facebooks motion to quash a non-appealable order would preclude [Facebook] from any opportunity to vindicate its position before an appellate body. The search warrants are overbroad and constitutionally defective. An order to produce documents pursuant to the Stored communications Act operates much like a subpoena duces tecum. The Stored Communications Actwhich the trial court repeatedly cited as providing the requisite statutory authority for the warrantsexpressly grants service providers like Facebook the right to move to quash warrants issued pursuant to the Act. To allow the failure to prosecute, a failure which may well be due to the absence of sufficient grounds to prosecute, to serve as a shield for the allegedly illegal seizure and retention of private property by government agents would be to make a mockery of justice. The Founders did not fight a revolution to gain Fourth Amendment rights that no one can assert. BTW: An indefinite non-disclosure order is tantamount to a permanent injunction of prior restraint. To the extent such an order enjoins speech beyond the life of the underlying investigation, it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest in order to pass muster under the First Amendment. The governmental interests considered herethe integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation, the reputational interests of targets, and the sensitivity of investigative techniquesare not sufficiently compelling to justifya permanent gag order. Good news? related: Police cannot search arrestees cellphones without a warrant, the U.S. Supreme Court decided. What ifthe gov't has a open permanent 'fishing expedition' warrant for everybody in the future?
They can always go to the NSA. The NSA has a facility in Utah with the capacity to store millions upon millions of petabytes, and they track all phones everywhere and other devices that one can use for communication.
