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
I don't think it needs to be confrontational to say "no" when it's not required by law. In the US we have been led to believe that it's confrontational to stand up for your rights to police (e.g. to deny IDing yourself when asked without being detained, etc in most states).

>>ddooli+a8
But what if one is wrong about one's rights? A person mistakenly asserting themselves might have a car window smashed and spend a night in jail for obstruction. But a company mistakenly asserting rights can see equipment seized, fines, civil liabiliy, and possibly very negative regulator treatment. It is not unreasonable for a company to be very careful when saying no to US law enforcement. Cassually telling the cops to "stuff it" is a protest best left to individuals at the roadside.

>>sandwo+0e
If the cops are asking, it means they need your permission and you have the right to say no. They might be dicks about it but if they’re asking, you can say no. Conversely if they don’t need your permission, they won’t bother asking. And you can always verbally tell them you don’t consent to searches; you only really get in trouble for physically interfering.

Also, companies in particular have lawyers whose entire full time job is to know when to tell the government to “stuff it” (though usually in much classier terms). Apple famously did this with the FBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute