zlacker

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+(OP)
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+Q5
It is unreasonable. But it is a broken system.

I mean, in general, there shouldn't be situations that are described as "mistakenly asserting rights". But as you say, the alignment and incentives are opposed, and it's too easy, not better, for companies to choose the path of least resistance, rights be damned.

>>sandwo+Q5
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