To be fair, if I were investigating a crime I would start by just asking companies to give me information informally, even if most say no.
If I were part of a business, 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. If that means asking for a warrant, I would politely, but firmly ask for one.
I'm thinking of getting one of those doormats that say "GET A WARRANT", personally.
Plus, who wants to sully a relationship with people who have the power to make your life and business miserable?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.