<i>is doing it really &quot;voluntary&quot;?</i><p>Of course.  Most utility companies have a large number of lawyers.  Lawyers which advise them on actions.  Sometimes those lawyers are going to say &quot;just do it, it&#x27;ll be easier&quot;, but it&#x27;s still voluntary.  What do you think the effect of saying &quot;Our lawyers are pretty sure that this type of surveillance would require a warrant.  Do you have one of those?&quot; would be?  It&#x27;s not like they are going to shoot up the utility.<p><i>What business owner would say no?</i><p>There appears to be no evidence that the ATF told the utility that they would take any adverse action if they did not install the camera. This is just like if the police come to your door and say &quot;Can we come in?&quot;.  Let them in after they ask, and that is voluntary.  Even if most people would not want to say no (which is something that state and federal officers rely on).  Many companies that get requests from local and federal agencies will tell them that their request is deficient and to provide proper documentation (ex: facebook and twitter have sent back requests or tried to squash subpoenas that they deem to be insufficient).  My guess is that we don&#x27;t hear about this very often because it&#x27;s supremely easy for the agency to just go get the warrant (it&#x27;s not a high barrier at all) or find someone more amenable.  It&#x27;s just easier for the agency if the company voluntarily complies.