....Third, why can’t the holy and pure see that this is unreasonable search. Clicking is not probable cause,,,downloading is.
First, I am also amused by those statements -- which is why I used such statements as one of two ridiculous extremes. The other extreme, of course, was the idea (apparently conveyed by the author of the article) that one errant click could result in a completely innocent victim being whisked away to the gulags for life.
Second, why can't those who see anyone not signing up for a lifetime membership in the ACLU over this as "the holy and pure" see that the probable cause (as somewhat clearly stated in the article) arises not from simply clicking but from actually downloading a file that purports to be kiddie porn.
As for the alarmism that somebody will cleverly disguise these links to look like something innocent to punk people into jail, if it is so easy for these pranksters to discover the links (without landing themselves in jail first) and incorporate them into their devious schemes, then the whole program would be completely ineffective as a sting operation aimed at kiddie porn users.
. I see, so if someone spoofs the system and steals a wireless connection to click the link and tries to download the file and the warrant gets filed and the door knocked on is a guy who never seen kiddie porn in his life let alone would even consider downloading such its all OK?
Do you realize how many unsecured networks are in operation in the USA?
Let me put it this way.
Are you OK with the FBI knocking on your door with a warrant for a Kiddie Porn Search because your neighbor claims you have some?