Having worked in law enforcement for many years in the past, maybe I can shed some light on this.

It's not illegal or even immoral for a detective or agent to ask a company or individual "Hey, what can you tell me about X?" Depending on the nature of the relationship between the company/individual being questioned and X, it's usually not illegal for them to provide information to the officer. The problem is, depending on the nature of the investigation, that information can be considered hearsay and can be attacked by a defense attorney, so usually when an officer asks those kinds of broad questions they are simply trying to see if it's worth their time to get a warrant and get all the information they can on X. They can then take what they learn to a judge to convince them to sign off on the warrant so they can get the admissable evidence needed to proceed with an arrest and indictment.

And yes, you have every right to not consent to questioning or a search without a warrant (whether you are being questioned as a witness or a suspect), and you should exercise that right vigorously. Don't make it easy on them, make them work hard to build their case, because they should indeed be held to a higher standard.

Are they breaking the law by asking people to voluntarily hand over information they have? Does the US has privacy laws that require a company to demand a warrant? I don't think there is, and having been involved in telecom for a while, I've not heard of such a thing[1].

It's more akin to asking other witnesses if they saw/heard anything.

1: I will note that cooperating with LE voluntarily can have backlash. Ignorant AGs will go after you because they e.g. misunderstand how networks work and blame you for customer actions, even if you try to helpfully educate them.

"If you were investigating a crime, you're in law enforcement." False.

Defense attorneys and their investigators also investigate crimes. This realization shows why the broadening the warrant requirement can have perverse outcomes.

Say you are defending a man accused of rape due to lack of consent. Let's also say that this is a false accusation that can be proven false because the accuser uploaded a video of the events which show consent to her Facebook account. Let's further say that the defense really wants access to this video. If a warrant is required, the defense can NEVER get it because there is no way under the law the defense can get a warrant (unlike a subpoena or court order).

Think about that for a minute. Everything that requires a warrant cannot be accessed by the defense, regardless of what is at stake (which is always life and liberty). Period.

PS: I'm not suggesting rape accusations are usually false. Just an example to illustrate the downside of a broad warrant requirement from someone who defends accused people.

The comment you're responding to said

> I would be obliged to follow the laws about giving away data, so I would find out exactly what my legal obligation is, and follow that as best I could.

Of course, the law requires people to obey subpoenas as well as warrants, as the commenter would find out if they did what they said. The point is to follow due process, not that everyone has to become a lawyer and learn the fine distinctions between different types of writ.

I agree with you. My comment was more of a commentary on the unintended consequences of this: http://www.wired.com/2013/01/google-says-get-a-warrant/

On HN and most places on the internet, most people support the warrant requirement for most or all digital data. I do too, in a sense, as I believe law enforcement shouldn't have unfettered access to a person digital info.

However, as a defense attorney, I've learned that a consequence of the warrant requirement is that the defense has no legal way access to digital information during a defense investigation.

In effect, a warrant requirement for digital materials means only law enforcement and prosecutors can access them. However, an accused person's attorney cannot.

Because it takes the least amount of time and effort to get the answers you need. Most people want to do the "right thing" to catch the bad guy, and will help out a LEO without a warrant to that end.

Plus, who wants to sully a relationship with people who have the power to make your life and business miserable?

Sadly, I image you're correct. But you're speaking of regular citizens, not the law enforcement officers. The officers would seem to have a greaty duty than ordinary citizens, no?

What duty do they have other than to ensure they get credit for a job well done and to continue their career building?

They're people driven by the same selfish pressures most are, but there is little oversight or regulation to keep that in check.

Getting answers quickly and cheaply is considered good investigative work. A warrant is a last resort and exists as a check against their desire for answers from someone who is unwilling to comply.

I guess for all practical purposes, no other duty. I am 100% positive that all law officers take a special oath, and are also treated differently according to the letter of the law. Police officers are allowed to carry firearms and shoot people legally, after all. In addition to extra leniency about capping people, law officers have additional legal duties. I mean, we're treated to "ignorance of the law is no excuse", so I must believe that law officers aren't ignorant of the law, and have extra legal duties. So in practice I agree, they're motivated by all the same things the rest of us are, but we give police special privileges, supposedly in return for extra responsibilities. i believe we (including the law officers themselves) should hold law officers to higher standards.

An oath and standards are ideals unless we do something significant to uphold them. I agree with your last point entirely.

>Officers of the law have an ethical duty to obey the law

They don't have an ethical requirement to take the longest route to that goal. So, if asking nicely, or bullying gets the job done with less work, then many will do that.