I am confused by this proposition and am wondering if it goes beyond emails. I am law enforcement also and we already have to get warrants for all digital content. That is, anything you believe could be interpreted as a private conversation (email, private message, locked comments) or personal entry (diary or the like). I think that is a good thing, because while I am LE I am also a citizen and believe that rights, especially 4th amendment rights, need to be upheld. I am confused though because the article says a subpoena could read emails, but I promise you it gives no such authority. A subpoena can handle subscriber information typically used to identify an account holder. That would be useful if "badguy123" threatened to kill the president or wired a million dollars to ISIL for example. Anything beyond that requires a court order, which is signed (typically after revision) by a judge. Those court orders, especially search warrants, require (as many have mentioned below) probable cause that the "bad guy" truly owns the account, that he has committed a crime, and that evidence of the crime exists within that account. Those are typically 30-50 page affidavits and I promise it isn't easy and certainly not automatic. So while don't disagree that a warrant is needed, I don't really understand why this is new. To answer those that asked why "private digital info isn't the same as analog/written information," it is. In fact, it is treated a little tighter. For example, if I legally walked into your house by court order to seize drugs and found child pornography laying all over your floor out in the open, you'd be charged for both. A SW of a computer is much more strict. If I seize your computer for emails and find a folder that you left open on the desktop labeled "kiddy porn" with a thousand homemade videos, or a media player you left running with kiddy porn on it, I can't seize it. In some districts, I can't even go back to a judge for a second warrant, because they interpret that not as "plain view," (which offers legal authority to act on crimes committed in plain sight) but as intrusion beyond that described in the original warrant. It's possible I missed something, but I am at a loss.