Kinda funny how almost every leaker or hacker in the last decade always seems to end up with child pornography in some way, shape, or form once the authorities get to them. Besides which, law enforcement isn't picky about when they pick people up.
>The issue in that case is the violation of the innocent person's privacy, not that they have a risk of being falsely convicted. The courts would still need admissible evidence, and I don't believe that only having a perceptual hash and a set of legally photographed images clears that bar.
So... You admit that this type of scanning is an invasion of privacy, and would likely be a flagrant constitutional violation if done by the Government?
So why is it okie-dokie for the private sector to do this type of systematic check and balance evasion? That's what gets to me.
>The issue in that case is the violation of the innocent person's privacy, not that they have a risk of being falsely convicted. The courts would still need admissible evidence, and I don't believe that only having a perceptual hash and a set of legally photographed images clears that bar.
So... You admit that this type of scanning is an invasion of privacy, and would likely be a flagrant constitutional violation if done by the Government?
So why is it okie-dokie for the private sector to do this type of systematic check and balance evasion? That's what gets to me.