It&#x27;s not an opinion, it&#x27;s backed by two centuries of vast US rulings on what a warrant is: intentionally narrow in scope, no broader than absolutely necessary, well defined in its purpose and target, leaving as little room for abuse as possible. The &#x27;warrant&#x27; granted in this example is extremely broad, almost entirely undefined in how it&#x27;s to be implemented, and allowing for the targeting of essentially any person on earth. It&#x27;s close to being the exact opposite of what the law has defined a warrant as throughout US history.<p>One of the primary complaints of the founding fathers was the abuse by the British when it came to general warrants. They specifically attempted to limit warrants just for this very reason, so abusive agents of the government couldn&#x27;t turn them into general warrants.<p>The fact that this example warrant allowed for infinite targeting (ie had no actual specific targets in mind), means that it is not a warrant by the definition set over the prior 200 years in the US. It is an obvious general warrant, and non-constitutional.