[nvy]

>In that case, it's illegal to look in the phone book for names starting with "john" because that's not a specific user.

That's an absurd reduction, and not at all analogous to the situation discussed in TFA.

[w10-1]

I agree the situations are different and this situation warrants privacy protection.

However, the court fails to articulate anything close to a workable rule in its reasoning.

Further, because the actual outcome was an upheld search d/t good faith reliance, the finding of unconstitutionality is basically dicta, and would/should be ignored by other districts and even in the same district.

I don't think this ruling offers the protections people want or should have. I think that point stands, however hidden by downvoting.