Your response isn't really connected to the paragraph you quoted from my comment. My second paragraph explains why the situation is how it is.
But it is undisputed that neither the cloud provider nor the bank own what you put in there so I'm not sure why you'd hook into that point.
The rifling through your things is a strawman in this context. Both parties can and will do it if the law asks for it. It's logistically more complicated for a bank to do it for thousands of boxes but on the other hand all that stands between the bank and the content is one door they can easily unlock. It's far easier for a cloud provider to rifle through every account but on the other hand between them and the data there may be some practically unbreakable defense (encryption). Which is why Apple can get out of a search warrant while a bank cannot.
But it is undisputed that neither the cloud provider nor the bank own what you put in there so I'm not sure why you'd hook into that point.
The rifling through your things is a strawman in this context. Both parties can and will do it if the law asks for it. It's logistically more complicated for a bank to do it for thousands of boxes but on the other hand all that stands between the bank and the content is one door they can easily unlock. It's far easier for a cloud provider to rifle through every account but on the other hand between them and the data there may be some practically unbreakable defense (encryption). Which is why Apple can get out of a search warrant while a bank cannot.