It may be true that many, even most (although I doubt it), law enforcement agents dealing with IT are competent. But that's not good enough.
The cornerstone to the philosophy of our legal system is that the USA should be a place where someone who is acting legally need never worry about being a victim of law enforcement. That's why we guarantee a jury trial, require that anyone arrested be read Miranda rights, forbid searches without warrants (and enforce the Exclusionary Rule), etc.
Saying that someone implicated in a crime (or more importantly, someone whose server happens to sit next to one owned by someone implicated) will probably not suffer at the hands of incompetent agents is nowhere good enough.
It's far more important that no innocent be persecuted than that no bad guy slip through the net. I will not have it on my conscience that the government, acting in my name with powers I've ceded to it, has violated the human rights of someone that was no danger to me.
The cornerstone to the philosophy of our legal system is that the USA should be a place where someone who is acting legally need never worry about being a victim of law enforcement. That's why we guarantee a jury trial, require that anyone arrested be read Miranda rights, forbid searches without warrants (and enforce the Exclusionary Rule), etc.
Saying that someone implicated in a crime (or more importantly, someone whose server happens to sit next to one owned by someone implicated) will probably not suffer at the hands of incompetent agents is nowhere good enough.
It's far more important that no innocent be persecuted than that no bad guy slip through the net. I will not have it on my conscience that the government, acting in my name with powers I've ceded to it, has violated the human rights of someone that was no danger to me.