FWIW: At 911, we were the police, organizationally. Actual sworn cops didn’t have special access to phone companies that dispatchers didn’t— we’d probably be the ones making the request for them if it was that urgent. (In some places dispatchers are cops, but is very uncommon, and the distinction isn’t important in this respect.) Phone companies aren’t going to hire a bunch of specialized workers to comply with legal orders instantly instead of soon enough. And there surely needs to be a ticket made and such… it’s not like CS reps have that info.

The NSA doesn’t need warrants in many cases because they can get the information they need from the government’s own databases. I’m not an expert, but as far as I know, if they need someone’s location from a phone company they do need a warrant or to prove there were exigent circumstances, which is why they just get shit from data brokers. Some politicians want to close that loop hole but most either don’t, or don’t care enough. Some, shockingly, even want to reform FISA.

In 2026, it's Israel. The NSA is so last decade, and isn't even mentioned in this article.

Silicon Valley and global communications infrastructure has been compromised by Israel. Quoting TFA:

> This analysis identified 4G infrastructure associated with operator networks based in Israel, the United Kingdom, and the Channel Islands. Notably, in prior public reporting these same countries have been linked to CSVs targeting mobile users.

> Israel has long been a focal point in the global surveillance industry, with multiple companies developing and exporting advanced spyware, cellular communications interception, and monitoring technologies.

I mean, it might genuinely be a good idea to start thinking about how to live in and administer justice in a society where privacy is dead and unsavory details about other people's lives are likely to find their way out into the open, and where you just kind of have to deal and go on with life. It's tough because that would force us to have to separate out crimes that do actual real damage (what's "real damage"?) from "crimes" that just make people uncomfortable, and behavior that's actually disqualifying from behavior that's, "Oh, you're into that, huh...? How interesting.".

In a sense, where already there, funhouse mirror-like - consider the sentence for selling a pound of coke vs that for a literal ton of Percocets; people will still want to hang out with you after you've laid off 1,000 employees, but god forbid you, I dunno, watch cartoons - but I guess it would still be a sea-change in the approach.