If you simplify this sentence, by throwing away all the verbal formulas, like "rooting in our lives" and "how we relate" and "new elements of our lives," you will see that it means "Rapidly changing technologies raise basic questions about how we live." You will then see that it's a bad sentence with which to begin your essay, because it isn't actually an idea: it's just a platitude. Writing in a too-complicated way is interfering with your thinking. Editing yourself well helps you to clarify what you think, not only what you write.

The easiest way to categorize and solve these new problems is to resort to analogies and use our knowledge and experience that have already been there for centuries.

Our knowledge and experience have only been "there," by which you mean "here," for a few years. Our consciousness, our mode of cogitation, was born with us. Traditional metaphors are no more useful to us than ones we fashioned for ourselves in explaining new phenomena to us. And the metaphors of people younger than ourselves, who have met phenomena new to us as simply part of the world, to be learned about as everything else is learned about, will be more useful to us than those fashioned by people who lived and died without seeing what we see. So why is what you are saying true? It is true, in the sense that what is "easiest" for us is not the best way to think. You could pursue the question "Why do we think in the fashion that is 'easiest' rather than the one that is most productive?" This is a profound question that leads in many useful directions. More importantly, you could simply discard the line of thinking that depends on unproductive approaches, and think better. Instead of writing about how transitional people think, who have to use metaphors to deal with digital technology, ask how people who know the technology directly presently think, might think, have to think. That will lead you to some even more profound questions.

In light of this seemingly simple approach, we can think of everything that is happening in this new segment of our lives the same as what we know except in a different environment.

Maybe we can. Or maybe we cannot. In which case, we will become partly blind, aware only of what we can explain to ourselves using those metaphors. Others with which we might easily come into contact, or which we might make for ourselves, would produce different partial views. So at least using multiple overlapping metaphors would be an improvement. Or one could dispense with metaphor and learn about the phenomena directly.

However, this oversimplification cannot be accurate to cover what the fast developing digital world keeps offering. Second, the most exciting thing about the Internet era was the freedom it promised. This oversimplifying analogy of adapting our old concepts to the digital world does not only violate the freedom of the digital era but makes us even less free than what we began with.

You need to tighten your writing, Berak. By clarifying what you write you will clarify what you think. As I indicate above, the course of your argument is being dictated by distractions. If you were to take the sentences that seem to express your meaning and subject them to real questioning, the interrogation would make you a more powerful thinker immediately. Begin by undecorating what you write. Choose the simplest words you can without eliminating necessary parts of your idea. Use as few as possible. Now look at the idea each sentence expresses as though it were a stranger. Don't be comfortable with it. Make it earn the trust you place in it. You don't care how old it is, or who it slept with last night, or last year. You want to see it clearly in the light of today.

Soon you will discover that most sentences are themselves only jumping-off points. The real idea is somewhere in the neighborhood of the sentence you wrote. Often they are as close to one another as day to night, and no less different.

And in which respect is any of that unlike "real" filing cabinets in the real world?

Why is the metaphor either right or wrong? When data is stored by analog printing on paper, there are storage systems for paper, called "filing cabinets," and comprising everything from personal papers scattered around one's house in a comparatively (or completely) disordered way, and meticulously maintained, decentralized, controlled warehouses of documents maintained by late 20th-century businesses? When data is bits, it is stored in everything from personal computer hard drives never backed up under any circumstances, and maintained by people who have no sense of how data should be cared for, and vast cloud storage arrays that are deduplicated and instantaneouslt backed up, run by the world's most experienced IT management firms, but which can still be used by a knowledgeable computer user as though they were one big laptop hard drive. The metaphor "a hard drive is like a filing cabinet" is neither right nor wrong because neither term is precise enough to have any fixed meaning. The speaker of the metaphor and its hearer add almost all the content to it, each in no doubt completely different ways, and arrive at conclusions in any given situation that may be perfectly serviceable or entirely deceptive.

When discussing computers as source of evidence, especially in the context of cybercrimes, the most commonly discussed examples are child pornography cases. Due to dreadfulness of the crime alleged, the exorbitance of violating the privacy of the suspect computer owner appears more tolerable.

To whom? That's not the law in our legal system, and is not the principle on which police investigation is conducted. Leaving aside whether there is more "dreadfulness" in possessing pictures of children being sexually abused than there is in cheating poor people out of their houses, which I doubt, there is no basis on which we can or should distinguish among types of offenses with respect to the constitutional or other legal limits on investigation.

The necessity of such invasive measure becomes more questionable in cases of tax fraud, In the Matter of the Search of: 3817 W. West End, or illegal steroid use by professional athletes, United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing.

Measures of investigation are not justified by necessity.

But is the basis of the evident injustice that a document may have been found in a computer as well as in a physical search of a home, or on the substantive basis of punishing someone for a thought crime?

Once again, as necessity is not a basis for the legitimation of investigative measures under our law, this is an irrelevant inquiry,

No, not because hardware seizure gives large amounts of information, but because the Fourth Amendment contains the requirement that places to be searched and things to be seized must be stated with particularity. In fact, the grant of seizure authority, though it must be stated separately in the warrant and called for separately in the affidavit backing the application, will be approved nearly automatically.

This paragraph is obscure. You need to explain the rules clearly, and make whatever point you mean to make about them on the basis of the description you've provided.

This is not our law. You're making this up.

There's no real relation between the introduction and conclusion, which seem to be about general issues, and the intervening text, which sketches out a couple of implications of the Fourth Amendment particularity principle in relation to digital searches, and which repeatedly misstates our search law to distinguish forms of investigation on the basis of "seriousness" or "dreadfulness" of offenses, and to state that methods of search are justified by "necessity." I think the best way to improve the piece is to leave this material on search law out, and to write a development of the introduction that would permit a more informative conclusion.