How would one go about showing either a) or b), though?
For example, b) is really absurd in common cases: smoking out in your backyard or tripping in your living room really doesn't matter to the public, storing copies of songs and sharing doesn't hurt anyone, and parking the wrong direction on a street doesn't usually cause any real issues--yet we are to assume that the government is looking out for the public good by interfering with these activities?
I'm not sure we can assume as much as you suggest here.
I am not saying all subpoenas are reasonable. I'm saying that they almost by definition can't be extrajudicial, because they are in effect court orders. The only way to enforce them is to take them to court.
I recognize that the Wired article raises multiple issues with Administrative Subpoenas. What I'm saying is that one of those issues --- the fact that they can be issued without warrants --- is probably a red herring. Agencies can demand whatever they want. The only thing that gives subpoenas force is a court of law.
> smoking out in your backyard or tripping in your living room really doesn't matter to the public, storing copies of songs and sharing doesn't hurt anyone, and parking the wrong direction on a street doesn't usually cause any real issues--yet we are to assume that the government is looking out for the public good by interfering with these activities?
Maybe you think that, but the majority of US voters support people who don't. In fact, they are so sure it's a bad thing that they support governments who want it outlawed.
Maybe it's just conservatism - current voters might be ambivalent enough on the issue that they'd rather the government just doesn't do anything (if it aint broke, don't fix it).
Whatever the case, the government has the backing of the majority of voters, which is a pretty good system overall. Is there a better system of government you had in mind?
For example, b) is really absurd in common cases: smoking out in your backyard or tripping in your living room really doesn't matter to the public, storing copies of songs and sharing doesn't hurt anyone, and parking the wrong direction on a street doesn't usually cause any real issues--yet we are to assume that the government is looking out for the public good by interfering with these activities?
I'm not sure we can assume as much as you suggest here.