Court orders are a last resort. Often, law enforcement will just ask providers to kindly share the information they want access to, and the providers comply. No warrants needed.

Sure, but asking politely is hardly the mark of tyranny, and has nothing to do with the sort of scenario I'm replying on.

"Asking politely" is a euphemism. The company has a desire to receive government contracts, or to not be subject to adverse regulations, and is thereby given the choice to submit or be the subject of retaliation.

In reality it's an end-run around the court system. If the government officially penalized them for not complying, various parties would have standing to assert their rights. So the punishment isn't officially tied to the failure to submit, but the threat is still there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveilla...

"Oh, your new office building looks nice. Did your construction firm get all the necessary permits? Are you sure? All of them? Oh, and I see you have a lot of new employees. A lot of them. I bet it would tie up your HR department for quite a while if the INS came by and requested documentation that all those employees are authorized to work in the US, wouldn't it?

"Anyway, I've come to ask whether you could do a favor for us."

"Say, that's a nice business you have there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it."

And it's the organised crime that is associated with mafia tactics...

I think it is more complicated that. It's more like asking your neighbor to borrow some sugar. Nothing nefarious, but your neighbor might later ask to borrow your ratchet set. The concern is how strong is this relationship and if there is real quid pro quo going on. It gets gray real fast when you are your neighbor's boss and control his raises.

Also in this case, it's not even your sugar. You're giving out someone else's sugar, so why the hell would you care?

In America, the validity of a search is rarely an impediment to carrying it out.

This is from Mapp v. Ohio, an old Warren Court decision establishing the exclusionary rule. It has long since been hacked to the bone.

I so wish you were right but this is very much not correct.

In Australia, you currently just have to suggest a peaceful protest for a search warrant to be issued against you. There are quite a few people who've been dragged off because of this. It's my understanding that everything is collected and analysed during these searches.

If you believe this is true in practice, I've got a bridge to sell you.

In case any were curious of the origin of this phrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker