1st flaw seems to be the point of the article that since the government has a certain amount of power to look into your private life then you should not care if they have more... So by this logic we should be ok if the government no longer needs warrants to get things hell they can get them now if they have a warrant anyway.
2nd Flaw "It isn't a real risk to law-abiding citizens" . There is no such thing as a "law-abiding citizen"; You probably broke several laws already today that you don't know about... Many states its illegal to spit or get a blow job, most of you at least broke the speed limit on a public road.
3rd Flaw he state that he Odds of the government becoming NAZI like are the same as be a meteor. This may be true at the federal level.... But the government is made up of many people at many levels and anyone of them could start giving you issues where an invasion of privacy could be a real concern, especially if you some how differ from the norm in their fiefdom. EX being gay, black, a different religion or political affiliation.

Did you show ID or nut up and refuse?

No where does it say in TFA that the data is not yours in a cloud environment. It states that the contract you agreed to with a 3rd party for holding your data limits some of your data rights. And yes this is the same as a public storage or a safety deposit box. In both those real world cases you loose certain property rights when you sign a contract with them to hold your stuff. The biggest example of this is that they get to keep your crap if you do not pay for storage...
Besides that if your storing your crap in a storage facility and the rest of the facility is being used for illegal drug trafficking it will be just as hard to get your stuff back and the cops will search your storage unit as well.

It could be seen this way.. If while giving me a tour of your land I fumble my wallet onto the ground, do you own the wallet? if so when does it become yours? the instant it hits the ground, when i have move 50ft from it years etc...
If you extend this to treasure the person burying the treasure may not have been the land owner. So the land owner never owned the treasure, it was just like the fumbled wallet. The land owner not owning the treasure cannot legally change ownership of the treasure. Reasonably the treasure should be disseminated to the descendents of the real owner.
It appears that under British law, when the owner cannot be established it is automatically claimed by the crown.

First off if your reason for not letting your developer touch the production server is that they might hack it up, I suggest getting a new developer. With that said I assume you are running a business which really makes this a resource issue. There may be a couple of reasons why developers would do the installation.

1. The cost in time for developing/maintaining an install system is more than is required for the developer to do the installs themselves.
2. The systems could be very unique and having installers with enough knowledge to install even with a good installer is not as cost effective as having a developer that does it part time.

I had a client with a RAID 5 3 drives, it was explained that they could loose 1 drive and if they should call me and I would help them order a new drive and install it. Instead the customer removed the drive and "dusted it" after replacing it the light went green . He immediately removed a second drive to dust it too, just to be safe. Now this was an accountant at the height of tax season. I asked if they had been changing the tapes in the back up regularly, they said they stopped it from backing up last year. This client learned the hard way what data recovery services cost.

Wtf are they looking for anyway? Do they take laptops on the way in? I'm guessing right now they laptops go to the HLS laptop rewards program. much like the pie issue http://www.upgradetravelbetter.com/2006/11/25/update-pie-apparently-a-threat-to-security-after-all/