This is indeed done with a warrant - a gag ordered one.
The ones done without a warrant are a tiny fraction of the ones done with. The "burden" of getting a warrant is almost purely token at this point. The agents write some stuff "based on my knowledge and experience" and describe the who and the why and the what, and the judge rubber stamps it. There is no real consequence or penalty for misstatements of fact in the warrant application, and frequently the basis for the probable cause is simply wrong. 100% of the signed warrants I have seen contained obvious and blatant falsehoods.
It is not clear it was done with a warrant. It may have merely been a subpoena for the account details but not really contents. Since FBI refuses to respond to me or my attorney (Jennifer Granick of ACLU, one of the top in this field), we don't know.
How many “Law Enforcement Notice” emails did you receive from Facebook? 1 or multiple?
Did Facebook release the case ID associated with the legal action?
Have you tried a Privacy Act request with the FBI? They may deny it based on “current or prospective law enforcement” but if you were scooped up in a dragnet, they may give you something.
1 (I also emailed them and was told "we can't give you legal advice").
I have the case IDs but my lawyer (Jennifer Granick; she is basically among the best in the world for this) has been unable to get a response from FBI -- they blew her off 5 times.
I did FOIA myself and got "no information since last time you requested" (~10 years ago, which was also basically null)
A Senator's office is involved now. (This is all complicated even more because I currently live in a US Territory where we don't have Congressional representation.)
I meant the general practice of government snoops getting non-e2e customer data from FAANG et al.
People get upset or outraged about warrantless stuff, and they should, but it's important to remember that even search warrants in the USA are essentially rubber stamp (unless they specify like "every photo posted to instagram on x date" or some other obviously overbroad thing). The companies' own transparency reports show the scale of warrants/etc versus NSLs, FISA orders, and the other warrantless stuff people take issue with.
Even without FISA 702 (aka PRISM), National Security Letters, et c, providers having huge, long term, comprehensive non-e2e troves of our data (ie gmail, instagram) is a hazard due to search warrants and of course the insane third party doctrine.
The ones done without a warrant are a tiny fraction of the ones done with. The "burden" of getting a warrant is almost purely token at this point. The agents write some stuff "based on my knowledge and experience" and describe the who and the why and the what, and the judge rubber stamps it. There is no real consequence or penalty for misstatements of fact in the warrant application, and frequently the basis for the probable cause is simply wrong. 100% of the signed warrants I have seen contained obvious and blatant falsehoods.
It's pretty much a rubber stamp either way.