1a : a net drawn along the bottom of a body of water
b : a net used on the ground (as to capture small game)
2: a network of measures for apprehension (as of criminals)
In Hollywood movies, citizens have virtually no expectation of privacy and no practically no protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The movies typically depict cops routinely committing dozens of felonies in search of the criminal. Given any cop movie, I can (and usually do) count more than a dozen felonies committed before the credits roll. In some movies, the lead police character actually commit more crimes of more seriousness than the suspect they are chasing...
We must keep the Hollywood movie fantasy separate from reality otherwise we risk moving over the line.
Case in point: Blanket search warrants
“The demands Raleigh police issued for Google data described a 17-acre area that included both homes and businesses. In the Efobi homicide case, the cordon included dozens of units in the Washington Terrace complex near St. Augustine's University.” http://www.wral.com/Raleigh-police-search-google-location-history/17377435/
Where a warrant is supposed to describe a specific person, place, or thing, going beyond that criteria is getting close to the line, if not clearly jumping over it. Creating an analogy of searching a person/place/thing using high tech methods (non-invasive) and physically searching a person/place/thing (invasive) escapes most. Few want a stranger, police officer or otherwise, to open their closets and toss items around, but when it comes to digital information, it seems that many people don’t have the same concerns over privacy and their protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"…Another review would further cull the list, which police would use to request user names, birth dates and other identifying information of the phones' owners….At the end of the day, this tactic unavoidably risks getting information about totally innocent people," Wessler said. "Location information is really revealing and private about people's habits and activities and what they're doing." http://www.wral.com/Raleigh-police-search-google-location-history/17377435/
Our data privacy problem resides partly in the service providers and partly with us, the users. For example, to have the convenience in finding a specific type of restaurant based on your location, a service provider needs to know (1) your location, and (2) your desires. The service provider stores each of your location way-points and all of your typed desires. They keep this information well past your immediate use of the service. Your consent is key to making this data fair game to advertisers, spammers, criminals, and the government today and into your foreseeable lifetime and after death.
The difference between your home being searched by the government and your data being searched by the government is that when it is your data stored by a service provider, you are not generally aware that it is going on. It doesn’t feel invasive because it happens without you seeing it. You don’t see an investigator reading details about your life and would not expect it happen anyway.
For investigators, it is so much easier to search the private data of every citizen in an entire city than it is to physically go house-to-house and physically search the homes. By the way, if there comes a day where we see blanket warrants to search house-to-house, we probably are not having a good day. But that is what happens to our personal data.
My hope is that law enforcement doesn’t lose the ability to use high-tech methods because of an over-reaching search warrant, but I know that this is what invariably happens because the easy way is going to be chosen by someone when they should have chosen the more reasonable way.
I’m curious to see where the fine line will be drawn in using dragnets to obtain everything to search for a specific something.