1. You're giving police full access to tapes of everyone's closets.
2. Grey hoodies are common and this therefore feels like massive overkill.
More realistic, for the purposes of torturing analogies further, would be the police asking for a list of all people who bought a particular and rare style of designer hat from a particular designer store on the day someone was seen committing a crime while wearing an obviously brand new one.
What's being handed to the police is smaller, less revealing and much more targeted than "footage of everyone's closets".
Both examples should be equally unacceptable. When you're asking for "a list of all people who X" it's a fishing expedition not a targeted investigation of a few suspects. It doesn't matter how many rows the SELECT returns.
Giving a list of a small number of people who bought a hat, limited by location and time
and
Giving full video footage of everyones wardrobes (!!)
Are equally unacceptable. Unacceptable, sure, that's a difference of opinion but full video footage of everyones wardrobes is not the same as a small list of names.
Perhaps a similar thing would be if there was a well-executed break-in somewhere, would it be reasonable to ask for a list of people who took out the plans to that building from the local planning office recently?
> When you're asking for "a list of all people who X" it's a fishing expedition not a targeted investigation of a few suspects.
By this logic, any CCTV footage should also be thrown out because it's "a list of all people who were in location X at time Y".
I propose further bending the analogy to make it more correct:
>a particular and rare style
should be "a particular style", since we don't know how prevalent the image is in places that aren't major image search engines, or for other search terms within those engines.
>from a particular designer store
should be "from a specific location of a particular global discount store"
>on the day someone was seen committing a crime while wearing an obviously brand new one.
on the Tuesday before someone was seen committing a crime while wearing one. (images, once acquired, last forever; there's nothing saying the image was acquired in the time window of the subpoena)
I'm not sure I understand your changes. We're talking about searching for a relatively unknown person, so I'd assume we're talking about a rare search term. This is not like asking for who searched about "wire fraud".
> >from a particular designer store should be "from a specific location of a particular global discount store"
Sure, fair enough, my point was simply that it was a rare thing and pretty identifiable.
> (images, once acquired, last forever; there's nothing saying the image was acquired in the time window of the subpoena)
1. You're giving police full access to tapes of everyone's closets.
2. Grey hoodies are common and this therefore feels like massive overkill.
More realistic, for the purposes of torturing analogies further, would be the police asking for a list of all people who bought a particular and rare style of designer hat from a particular designer store on the day someone was seen committing a crime while wearing an obviously brand new one.
What's being handed to the police is smaller, less revealing and much more targeted than "footage of everyone's closets".