I think the confusion here might stem from Paige Piper. If she said to search for all copies of the card or a copy of the card, I don’t there would be any question that you were right, jako. But she says “any number,” meaning that even if there are 2 parasites left in the deck, you can certainly search for and trash only one of them.
From the Bank Job ruling, we know that “any number” can also be 0. What @ironcache is suggesting is that “any number of copies,” as the entity searched for, can thus be set to 0, even if there are remaining copies in the deck.
I think what you’re saying is that you are searching for “copies of the card,” so by that entry in the FAQ, if you can find copies, you must do so. However, this seems, to me, a peculiar reading of Paige, as she clearly allows you to set the number you are searching for. I guess I’m not seeing why finding 1/5 copies of Spy Camera would satisfy the section of the FAQ you’re referencing, but finding 0/5 wouldn’t. You aren’t voluntarily failing a search that could have succeeded - you are searching for 0 to begin with.
(As another editorial: I think this is a pretty marginal concern from a power level perspective in this particular scenario. If you’re using Frantic successfully, you probably want the full discount, and you probably want lots of recursion in your deck so you don’t always have to wait to see Paige before firing it. And in almost every circumstance, you would want to trash any duplicate copies of any 5+ cost program in your deck. Having said that, I am legitimately interested in this from a rules perspective - can “any number of copies” on a search be set to 0, akin to other “any number” effects? The only other semi-relevant case I can think of is Localized Product Lines, but of course if you really wanted to just force a shuffle with that for some bizarre reason, you could always just name a card that wasn’t in the deck, rather than searching for 0 copies of something that was.)