It did say the school was subpoenaed.

But only after they alerted the authorities based on a previous request for a heads up. I'm not even sure that would have held up in court here (nl). I'm sure a competent lawywer would have used that if it was possible statesside though, so what with him being convicted I take it that it is legal.

IIRC, there wasn't anything in there about him pleading guilty or not guilty... maybe there was no lawyer/trial?

Is it any different to the police asking your neighbours, or the people at your local coffee shop, whether they've seen you? I don't know if Amazon has any legal obligation to tell the police about your activity, but as far as I know they don't have any obligation _not_ to tell the police about your activity either (someone who's actually read the Amazon privacy policy might be able to correct me on this).

If the police cannot just grab records and look at them why can they be notified without warrant if records are updated, it seems that that behavior is counter-intuitive to what the law says about privacy, ie the government doesn't have a right without warrant to know what I use my account for but they do have a right to know if I use my account at all without warrant. This is a contradiction to what existing privacy laws already say.

As for witness testimony, it's vastly different because they aren't solid records. I don't have the ability to be private out in public, obviously. Plus people have different definitions of privacy, I would mind if my friends or family members alerted the police to where I was for any reason even if I had nothing to hide, because this kind of behavior will just repeat and against other suspects. Suspicion doesn't imply conviction.

Not sure of other jurisdictions, but in the UK at least, your privacy rights expire at death.