It is closer to find someones home key in a public place and deciding to see if it opens their door or not before giving it back.

You did not enter the house you did not explore. You turned the key, the knob, and made sure the door would open a little.

Not something I would recommend, especially since the key had the address and the owner name and address attached to it.

But not as bad as someone entering the home and looking around.

The analogies are beside the point. Logging in to a system which you don't have permission to access just is illegal in many countries, whether you think that it ought to be or not.

> The analogies are beside the point.

It helps decide weather or not the legal response if any is reasonable.

> whether you think that it ought to be or not.

I was not trying to comment on what I think ought to be.

I don't see how those two statements are consistent with each other. The first says you're trying to judge whether or not the law is reasonable, and the second says that you're not trying to comment on what the law ought to be.

> judge whether or not the law is reasonable

I am trying to make that judgment and help others to do so.

> and the second says that you're not trying to comment on what the law ought to be.

If I am trying to make a judgment, if I am in the process of reasoning through something I do not know what something ought to be.

Good analogies are those that help people reason through a problem and come to the correct conclusion, not a tool to sway people to your opinion.

Christ I hate that analogy, considering the government applies it like that for us, but not when it comes to them slurping our data.