I don't think it's what they deserved. There are many things that are illegal but probably shouldn't be: weed for example.

What I'm saying is, the article was actually about the fact that police are exploiting known insecure channels, not new ones. But the article title was suggesting the police were using new channels to surveil people. And I'm just surprised that many people don't know that phone calls, SMS, Google Searches, and Facebook Messenger can be obtained via subpoena.