>"If we continue to allow keyword warrants we should add a law limiting their reach, e.g. by limiting the number of people who can be revealed in the answer to any one such warrant."
What's frustrating is that that limit is already present in the constitution itself: "upon probable cause... and... *particularly* describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". "Particularly" isn't syntactic sugar; it is a word with meaning. "Specifically, uniquely or individually";
"In detail; with regard to particulars". Mass/dragnet/geofence warrants aren't constitutional.
What's frustrating is that that limit is already present in the constitution itself: "upon probable cause... and... *particularly* describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized". "Particularly" isn't syntactic sugar; it is a word with meaning. "Specifically, uniquely or individually"; "In detail; with regard to particulars". Mass/dragnet/geofence warrants aren't constitutional.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/particularly#Adverb
Plenty of federal judges seem to agree,
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/08/new-federal-court-ruli...
"...geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause and particularity requirements"*