OK, simply by mentioning that this would come out of Florida I'm already at risk of being banned for making a political post, so I won't go too deeply into the background of this story (which is messy in the extreme). Suffice it to say that a state employee has been arrested because she sent a message on a system which implied that she had to be misusing an account and password.
However, it turns out that there is, in fact, only one login and password, it is used by 1700 users ... and it's also posted online for anyone to find and use ...
@Startzc wrote:... why should I be required to eloquently reply...?
It is not required to be eloquent. What is required is to be respectful. To participate on this community, one is required to follow the rules set forth by is owners and to which @AndreaMoore (thier official representative) earlier provided a link.
As for the topic at hand, no need to wonder about the justification. The article Rob provided contains a link to the affidavit for the search warrant which enumerates the probable cause resulting in the warrant's issuance. It also makes clear the Affiant's intent to search her computing devices to develop the requisite evidence (or in your vernacular, "non-repudiation").
AFAIK, no charges have been issued, so I am not yet able to speculate how easily either party may prevail.
I'm just glad the argument flared and died.
So what're the three legs of this broken-leg stool? The system must be
Insert the obligatory "you can only pick two", and the password is solarwinds123