Hi. After reading the referenced article, a few cursory thoughts come to mind. 1. There is already some precedent, or at least methods of judging when communica

Hi. After reading the referenced article, a few cursory thoughts come to mind. 1. There is already some precedent, or at least methods of judging when communications should be forced over to law enforcement by telecommunications and similar companies. Although the context is foreign intelligence, one would think that national law enforcement would partner with the respective agencies to appropriate the assets (e.g. FISA, FAA, etc.). My thinking is missing the real context of the case and why the FBI needs the individual's assets. 2. If the emails originated or are accessed in the US, then it would be reasonable to assert that law enforcement can get warrants for search and seizure of a US system containing cached data, possibly issuing a gag and compliance orders for notification of such an event. Again, speaking without reviewing the "real" history of events from other resources beyond the initial article. 3. If the emails were not created or originated in the US, this appears to attempt to extend "the Act" to being able to step into another's soverign territory. The article didn't mention whether the FBI requested a warrant from the Irish Government.