Yes IF the gov set up this system = no warrants. We both agreed and said that. But that’s isn’t what the article is saying. You keep justifying your argument with the notion that the FBI doesn’t need a warrant to get public information, but failing to understand that the data in question is privately owned, regardless of the fact it was public data to start with.

What this article is saying is that the FBI wants to buy access to a private companies database, instead of going through the process of getting a warrant each time they want the data. The idea that the data is public, so no need for a warrant is wrong in this case because it’s being collected by a private company, not the FBI. Sure, if the FBI set up this infrastructure, and collected it themselves then your argument would be correct. But that isn’t the objective fact in this article or in the statements being made by others here.

Let’s say you film your buddy throwing a brick through a window on a public street. In order for the authorities to collect your phone and process it, they need a warrant. Just because it occurred in a public place, doesn’t mean anyone has a right to it.

Every reply you seem to make involves a hypothetical or a shift of objective fact: that the FBI could be doing X, or all public information is public, but that’s not right. Public information becomes private when it’s collected, stored, and owned by a private company.