You are quite right, and it's a shame people are downmodding you.
For some reason there is this belief that anything you do electronically should be immune to warrants, and warrants should only apply to physical documents.
Just read the comments and see, it's really astonishing.
It was the same thing with that phone the FBI was hacking, [some] people had a deep-seated belief that because it was encrypted the FBI should not be permitted to hack it!
(Some people had other issues with it, but they were a minority - most simply felt the FBI should not be allowed to try to hack a phone.)
If a bike was stolen from a street, the police do not have the right to enter and search every home on that street to see if you committed the crime. We already have the legal framework for these kinds of questions in meatspace. The courts are treating it differently because its on a computer, the same way companies are getting patents for unpatentable processes as long as they do it on the internet
Except that's a terrible analogy. A better analogy is the police are asking all the landlords to check their security cameras for someone carrying a bicycle.
For some reason there is this belief that anything you do electronically should be immune to warrants, and warrants should only apply to physical documents.
Just read the comments and see, it's really astonishing.
It was the same thing with that phone the FBI was hacking, [some] people had a deep-seated belief that because it was encrypted the FBI should not be permitted to hack it!
(Some people had other issues with it, but they were a minority - most simply felt the FBI should not be allowed to try to hack a phone.)