require intent. It strikes me that as a tool IMSI is both needed and necessary to law enforcement, providing as it can, locations of cell transmissions from "burn phones" available at corner stores and used by criminals and terrorists. The alternative would be to forbid the sale of "burn phones" which would only increase the theft of cell phones. Except in the area of Traffic Code enforcement, the Police don't go on net trawls of vast amounts of information because they don't have the manpower to do it.
And exactly how does searching for a particular cell phone signal "suck down" vast amounts of data. It may sweep over, and even identify the source of vast numbers of cell phones, but to "suck down" data it would have to record and store the information on all the cell phones in the area. I can't see that happening because storage capacity is always finite, and the manpower issue to screen all those cell phone addresses would be huge.
It is also right in line with, and may be a product of, Bush's Executive Order allowing warrantless wiretaps, internet surveillance and other Constitutional violations which have been so warmly embraced here.
Clearly the perception of egregious, profligate and unconstitutional use of Presidential EO's is in the eyes of the beholder, not necessarily in the intent of the signer.
Know how to save a wet phone?
It's not with a dryer and it's not with rice. CNET shows you the secret to saving your phone.