Whilst I have previously said that I at least understand the catch-22 and the problem it presents, I find the FBI's argument particularly annoying.
I agree that it is a problem that needs consideration because it's clear that you can't get a warrant in the correct jurisdiction if you cannot identify the location. There is no doubt that this situation can - and does - result in guilty people going free.
But then that is always the trade-off with due process and legal protections afforded to the public. After all, surely the Fifth Amendment also results in many guilty people going free? But that's the very basis of what we consider our western legal system*: innocent unless and until proven guilty says that we, as a society, would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be incarcerated.
It is, in short, the representation of the ideal that liberty is to be placed above safety. Unfortunately, this is something that our politicians and law enforcement agencies - and all too many citizens - have abandoned.
To come back to my grievances with the FBI's hand wringing, however, I find it distasteful that they paint themselves as having a deep respect for the rules of law and playing by them not just because they have to but because they are so darned upright they wouldn't dream of breaking them.
They make the plea that they are doing everything they can but their hands are tied. To an extent, that is not a lie. The problem I have with this line of argument is that the FBI, as noted in this article (and the linked one), have a history of not revealing the methods they used to identify people.
This has been most notable in the 'Stingray' cases, where the devices and techniques were used in situations (theft of fired poultry, anyone?) far beyond what anyone could consider reasonable. This is a general law enforcement problem and the core issue is quite simply that they (the LEAs) want to be able to circumvent the rules of evidence and due process whenever it pleases them, without having to justify or explain themselves.
Always, they plead on the most emotional or extreme cases - pedophiles and terrorists - but the changes they demand are so broad as to cover anything they want. And this is no mistake as, once in place, they are indeed used for anything they want.
Here, the FBI cite a very specific problem and complain that they aren't able to prevent something very bad because of some rules but their demand is for a blank cheque. If they were really, genuinely as concerned about these cases as they claim then they would propose changes so tightly-focussed and controlled that it would be nearly impossible for legislators to deny them.
In a way, it's like a child insisting they need a computer for school (imagine it back in the early 90s when you didn't really need one) because otherwise they will fail, all for lack of this vital resource. But the only computer they will accept is a fully-spec'ed monster with three screens and dual video cards and SSDs, complete with a low-latency Internet connection for, errr, faster research.
* - Not that other parts of the world aren't on the same page, of course.