Warrants are a mechanism by which speech is legally compelled.

The 5th Amendment gives you the right to refuse speech that might implicate you in a crime. It doesn’t protect Microsoft from being compelled to provide information that may implicate one of its customers in a crime.

▲

salawat 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Indeed. Third Party Doctrine has undermined 4th/5th Amendment protections due to the hair brained power grab that was "if you share info with a third party as art of the only way of doing business, you waive 4th Amendment protections. I ironically, Boomers basically knee-capped Constitutional protections for the very data most critically in need of protection in a network state.

Only fix is apparently waiting until enough for to cram through an Amendment/set a precedent to fix it.

	▲	qingcharles 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well, SCOTUS has ummed and erred over several cases about whether to extend the 4th Amend to third party data in some scenarios. IIRC there is an online email case working up through 9th Cir right now? One of the reasons giving for (usually) now requiring a warrant to open your phone they grab from you is because of the amount of third-party data you can access through it, although IIRC they framed is a regular 4th Amend issue by saying if you had a security camera inside your house the police would be bypassing the warrant requirement by seeing directly into your abode.