In this case, per the order [1] referenced in the article, this is a normal writ, and does not seem to have anything to do with national security or national security letters. It is also very specific, asking for records on one person for a period of six months, and signed by a district court.
I think that, to keep government accountable, these sealed writs should have a clear date when they will be unsealed, and although it seems this one was eventually unsealed I don't see such a date. But I don't find the specificity or nature of this particular court order problematic.
Certainly national security letters have been shown to have concerning issues both in specificity and in transparency, but again, none of the orders referenced in the article seem to be national security letters. (EFF has more details on their concerns with NSLs at [2].)
I think that, to keep government accountable, these sealed writs should have a clear date when they will be unsealed, and although it seems this one was eventually unsealed I don't see such a date. But I don't find the specificity or nature of this particular court order problematic.
Certainly national security letters have been shown to have concerning issues both in specificity and in transparency, but again, none of the orders referenced in the article seem to be national security letters. (EFF has more details on their concerns with NSLs at [2].)
[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6989724-All-Writs-Ac...
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/requiring-judicial-rev...