zlacker

>>nickth+(OP)
Good, that is the way it should have been the whole time. The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary. It is the duty of everybody to tell the government to stuff it when they aren't following the rules we have laid out for them.

>>tastyf+26
This isnt a traffic stop. Companies of size have daily relationships with law enfocement. While they certainly have obligations to customers, we cannot expect companies to be aggressively confrontational in every situation.

>>sandwo+N7
That's why we have process like warrants and judicial review. For the law to set appropriate limits and procedure to demonstrate necessity. In practice even this is usually not enough, and too many warrants are court orders are approved.

>>asveik+ra
Warrants are to obligate companies. We must also accept that some companies actively want to cooperate. They have their own agendas over who owns what data, agendas that often conflict with the views of privacy advocates. One would hope that market forces would drive these companies away but that doesnt seem to happen much these days.

>>sandwo+Nb
Sorry to go there, but it's more or less the same as saying there were some in 1930s Germany who "just wanted" to cooperate with their government. Being too lazy or ignorant of why the checks and balances exist and voluntarily violating their spirit is not really an excuse, and I give no one a pass for it. If it's important and justified, they can follow the law and get a warrant.

Your comments read as someone who isn't aware of all the terrible stories of cops not doing their jobs correctly and in some cases going after innocent people on the flimsiest of evidence. They should not be trusted by default.