> the quintessential problem with these warrants is that they never include a specific user to be identified, only a temporal and geographic location where any given user may turn up post-search

In that case, it's illegal to look in the phone book for names starting with "john" because that's not a specific user.

From the ruling emphasizes a search through the "entire" database as a kind of rummaging through everything in a house, but that's clearly inapt. First, it shouldn't matter whether Google just needs to check an index vs. doing a full scan. Second, there's no reason to assume a digital search has the same privacy implications as a house search. It's just assuming what you're trying to prove. `While the results of a geofence warrant may be narrowly tailored, the search itself is not` is relevant only if the search itself is an invasion of privacy.

So even (especially?) if I preferred the result in this case, that reasoning is not likely to hold up in a conflict with the 4th circuit. It's exactly this kind of weak conflict that gives the Supreme Court too much latitude to draw lines as they see fit.

edit: sorry, removed disrespect for the EFF