> Agreed. I believe requiring a service provider to turn over their private SSL key, exposing their entire user base to privacy breaches, to be an unreasonable search.
Requiring someone to turn something over is a seizure, not a search; if it is the only way to effect an otherwise-reasonable search, its probably also a reasonable seizure. If the recipient of the seizure order has deliberately engineered it to be the only way to effect potential searches of more limited scope, and it has broader impacts, there's really no one to blame but the recipient of the order.
> let's say one of their previous marketing points might have been that they are immune to such things
As, if such an order is legally possible, this advertising was false, I'm not sure why it should be allowed to provide them with a benefit.
Requiring someone to turn something over is a seizure, not a search; if it is the only way to effect an otherwise-reasonable search, its probably also a reasonable seizure. If the recipient of the seizure order has deliberately engineered it to be the only way to effect potential searches of more limited scope, and it has broader impacts, there's really no one to blame but the recipient of the order.
> let's say one of their previous marketing points might have been that they are immune to such things
As, if such an order is legally possible, this advertising was false, I'm not sure why it should be allowed to provide them with a benefit.