People are fine with police overstepping as long as they aren't in the crosshairs.

Usually, even non paranoid people become staunch privacy advocates once they had to fight the system after their data was abused.

I am greatly opposed to mass surveillance, especially when justified by some immaterial bogeyman such as "stopping terrorism".

However in this case, illegal immigration is a legitimate problem in the US with actual statistics to prove so, and it seems that they are only targetting individuals that they actually suspect of being criminals.

If law enforcement has genuine belief that I am a criminal then why would I be opposed to giving them data to absolve myself?

And yes of course this has the potential to be abused, but is there any proof of this in the article? It seems like one specific individual was targetted, and they had the courtesy to notify them that this was happening.

For hundreds of years police could just nicely ask a third party to turn over all your data - by simply going in and asking what they wanted to know - and proprietors often just did tell all they knew or had recorded. If the third party would refuse and police would demand that they comply, then they'd need a warrant, but nicely asking has always been an option during an investigation.

You are just making this up. Nowhere in the article is there any mention of them requesting data of 1,000 users to find one criminal.

What the article actually says:

>From January 2020 to June 2020, Google received nearly 40,000 requests for user information from law enforcement

There were 185,884 deportations by ICE last year, which is around 92,942 in the same time period. They are making 0.5 requests for information for every person they deport.