I recently served on a jury for a violent crime, and as a juror being able to see evidence like cell phone records and closed circuit video was incredibly valuable. Cases that would have otherwise been a matter of "he said, she said" can have corroborating evidence that makes it much easier to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I wondered how prosecutors managed to convict at all before these kinds of electronic records were available.
I'm not downplaying privacy concerns, but when you can see thing from the other side too it's easier to see it as a set of trade-offs that need weighing. It's not a black and white issue.
EDIT: Also remember that evidence can help the falsely accused just as easily as it can help victims of crime. Phone records can give a person an alibi that would otherwise have been very difficult to prove.
I'm not downplaying privacy concerns, but when you can see thing from the other side too it's easier to see it as a set of trade-offs that need weighing. It's not a black and white issue.
EDIT: Also remember that evidence can help the falsely accused just as easily as it can help victims of crime. Phone records can give a person an alibi that would otherwise have been very difficult to prove.