Microsoft accidentally makes a point

Microsoft argues that extending the reach of such warrants internationally creates conflicts between the laws of different governments and makes it tougher to operate online services internationally. Microsoft also disagrees with the premise that emails are the property of the provider, rather than the customer.

This is sort of the fundamental issue, and it goes way back to ancient times.  If I give coins to the bank, I give the bank power of attorney, in my view.  In the current system, the bank owns my coin, and I own a contract with the bank. It is a major difference, in the past. But no more.

I consider it an insignificant issue, and the robot attorneys can easily be owned by me, or have a contract with me and hold power of attorney over my coins is fine, the bank need not own them.

In this case, the customer of emails own the bot protocol that control the e mails.  The customer  can have the robot remove them, encrypt them, send copies of them and other e mail like operations on my mail, I  own the bot, or it is my lawyer, either way.

Consider:
I have an escrow ongoing, the escrow officer has power of attorney for 15 days to complete a transaction. Can the cops get a warrant on the escrow office?  No, they get a warrant on me, and permission to search my property held at the escrow office.  No other party to my escrow need be harmed, unless they are part of my plot.