[omginternets]

>"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N.

You're repeating a common fallacy, namely that warrants are a sine qua non condition for search and seizure. This is false. In the United States, one enjoys constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

While a warrant goes a very long way towards making a search or seizure reasonable, the two are not to be equated.

A few notable exceptions where warrants are not required:

- The so-called motor-vehicle exception

- The so-called "in hot pursuit" exception

I think we share the same feeling towards this particular case, but it's important to understand the legal arguments being made. The FBI is essentially claiming that it is reasonable to search browser history without a warrant.

[knieveltech]

No, I'm saying warrants should be a required condition for any search or seizure, not that they are currently. Law enforcement's job shouldn't be easy.

[omginternets]

That's absurd.

There are plenty of good reasons to conduct search and seizures without warrants. Simple example: a cop hears someone screaming for help inside of an apartment.

With respect (really!), I think you have a bit of an ideological blind-spot. I can relate, as I used to have the same one (and probably still do in some cases).

[knieveltech]

What do you think is more common, the "screams coming from apartment" edge case or corrupt cops abusing "probable cause"?

[omginternets]

>corrupt cops abusing "probable cause"?

This is why we have a court system. There is (in principle) remedy for the latter, but not for a failure to help someone in immediate distress.