Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
context, courts examine whether the relevant files were password-protected or whether the defendant otherwise manifested an intention to restrict third-party access.” United States v. Aaron, 33 Fed.Appx. 180, 184 (6th Cir.2002) (per curiam) (unpublished opinion); see also United States v. Buckner, 473 F.3d 551, 554 (4th Cir.2007) (using a password showed that defendant affirmatively intended to exclude others from his password-protected files); Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 403 (4th Cir.2001) (distinguishing joint access to the computer and its hard drive, for which co-user had authority to consent to search, from password-protected files; with respect to those files, co-user had no common authority where there was no access to the passwords); see also Conklin, 63 M.J. at 337 . But in this case, neither the computer nor
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building
B. holding that a roommate with shared access to anothers computer has common authority over the computer and can grant consent to search
C. holding that an agents use of filesharing program to access child pornography files on the defendants computer did not constitute an illegal warrantless search because the defendant had made those files accessible to others and thus lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in files
D. holding appellant failed to show any expectation of privacy in files stored on the computer system in his office was one that society accepts as objectively reasonable
E. holding that where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.