The idea that police are spending time just scanning photos of trains, flowers, kittens and so on in hopes of finding an occasional violation seems ridiculous to me. If nothing else, you would expect NCMEC to wonder why only 0.1% of their reports are ever followed up on.
a fishing expedition would be the right term for that
No it wouldn't. A fishing expedition is where you get a warrant against someone without any solid evidence and then dig around hoping to find something incriminating.
You never visited 4chan?
I have been a regular there since 2009. What point are you attempting to make?
They first entered your home illegally and found a joint on the table, and then got a warrant for the rest of the house. As pointed out in the article and in the title... they should need a warrant for the first image too.
This analogy is flat wrong. I already explained the difference.
most people (you excluded) believe that police shouldn't search private data of people just because some algorithm thinks so, without a warrant.
That is not what I believe. I think they should get a warrant to search any private data. In this case they're looking at a single image to determine whether it's illegal, as a reasonably reliable statistical test suggests it to be.
You're not explaining what difference it makes if a judge issues a warrant on the exact same criteria.
a fishing expedition would be the right term for that
No it wouldn't. A fishing expedition is where you get a warrant against someone without any solid evidence and then dig around hoping to find something incriminating.
You never visited 4chan?
I have been a regular there since 2009. What point are you attempting to make?
They first entered your home illegally and found a joint on the table, and then got a warrant for the rest of the house. As pointed out in the article and in the title... they should need a warrant for the first image too.
This analogy is flat wrong. I already explained the difference.
most people (you excluded) believe that police shouldn't search private data of people just because some algorithm thinks so, without a warrant.
That is not what I believe. I think they should get a warrant to search any private data. In this case they're looking at a single image to determine whether it's illegal, as a reasonably reliable statistical test suggests it to be.
You're not explaining what difference it makes if a judge issues a warrant on the exact same criteria.