There’s no warrant protection in this bill. They want to keep a copy of everyone’s data so they can look back at old stuff after the fact.

Even if there was warrant protection, I’d still be against it. People have traditionally had the right to speak to each other without giving a transcript to the police. I think it’s unreasonable to make that illegal.

Sure but I was responding to the point that a diary can't be searched. It can be. The key difference is that doing this for analog conversations was expensive for the police as it required them to devote finite human time. Digital is not the case.

Comparing to analog is I think flawed because even if it mapped 1-to-1 it does allow for a level of search that is problematic given the low cost of digital surveillance.

Testimony under oath can be compelled

In theory. In reality, no. "I don't remember/I don't recall" is a famous dodge.

Yes but people can genuinely forget the exact words they spoke time ago, even one minute ago, or a whole conversation. Examples: Who did I talk to yesterday? Did I met that neighbor of mine yesterday or was it the day before? I don't know.

I think generalizing forgetting information ignores that certain conversations would likely have a better chance to be remembered

They are not the same thing.

That is a significant hurdle. They have to do it for each individual target, show up in person and each case can be contested in court.

Scalable surveillance is different, just as scalable weapons are different.

It’s a good thing we have FISA then to protects us from the scalable surveillance. /s

Or, for that matter, analog correspondence or notes can absolutely be subpoened in many sorts of court proceedings, including civil.