This argument really doesn’t understand the concept of nuance. How many cameras would I have to put up before it’s not targeting? If I just happen to have enough cameras to capture every single path he takes is that targeting? Where is the line drawn? Almost all of the legal arguments were well before the technology we have today regarding retention and searchability.

And differentiation between the person and the law is inherently the problem. He was able to create this company because of the ambiguity of the law. If it were cut and dry they never would have risked the investment in the first place. Between the extensive network and the giant loophole of the third party doctrine, even though they market the directly to LEOs and the government, it all seems like a giant unlawful and unconstitutional government search.

I have no idea what the solution is but at the very least there should be accountability for improper searches and in my mind should require a warrant for EVERY search.

This is a problem with the law, not the person.

I guarantee that the person is making considerable effort to ensure that the law continues to serve the corporation he leads and resists any attempts to change it by the "peasant" class he clearly disdains.

The problem is with the law, the person, and the socioeconomic class that the person belongs to and the laws ultimately serve.