> There is no evidence that there is any legal protection ...
Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. We aren't stuck with our laws. If they're abusive or useless they need to be changed.
> If they can search your home for it, they should be permitted to search ...
Sure, I can see that you think that. But making false equivalences isn't a good argument even if it tends to be the usual limit of political discourse. Our servants are "permitted", with the right suspicion and warrants, to search almost anything (in the name of the people). Yes.
But this isn't a case of permission, it's about capability. They're incapable. You're implying that the law not only permits some searches, but necessarily compels unlimited help in making those searches possible?
That's a huge stretch. Especially when that help involves uttering falsehoods.
Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. We aren't stuck with our laws. If they're abusive or useless they need to be changed.
> If they can search your home for it, they should be permitted to search ...
Sure, I can see that you think that. But making false equivalences isn't a good argument even if it tends to be the usual limit of political discourse. Our servants are "permitted", with the right suspicion and warrants, to search almost anything (in the name of the people). Yes.
But this isn't a case of permission, it's about capability. They're incapable. You're implying that the law not only permits some searches, but necessarily compels unlimited help in making those searches possible?
That's a huge stretch. Especially when that help involves uttering falsehoods.