It's probably timing that is limiting your responses. AFAIK downvotes won't do that. And I didn't down-vote you. I accept your answer, and acknowledge that dif

It's probably timing that is limiting your responses. AFAIK downvotes won't do that. And I didn't down-vote you. I accept your answer, and acknowledge that different perspectives are valuable. My own opinion is far less relevant as I probably will not be implementing or executing systems that target information from large swathes of a population for inspection by my organisation. Nevertheless, let me give it a shot. I asked you about the social cost of false-positives. You reciprocated by asking me about false-negatives. It's tough - on both sides of the equation. I try to apply weighting. If the dragnet would be targeted to a limited number (say 100) then it could easily be justified, since the relative horror of one over the other is surely in that ball park. Maybe even 1,000. The problem for me is that mass surveillance such as the subject of this discussion is not numerically constrained. It's trawling the entire ocean floor for the one or two species that may be legally caught.