There has been some controversy of NCMEC. Specifically, they claim to a private organization, not subject to any of the constraints that public actors have (4th

There has been some controversy of NCMEC. Specifically, they claim to a private organization, not subject to any of the constraints that public actors have (4th amendment). In a case decided by future SCOTUS justice Gorsuch, it was decided NCMEC is “public agent.” That is, an agent of the government. That’s because is possess immunity from prosecution for possession of CSAM. When an electronic communication is referred to NCMEC, after, say, being identified by a hash, a NCMEC analyst reviews it. NCMEC claimed this wasn’t a search, because it’s not part of the government and the communication was sent by a non government agent. The 10th Circuit politely said “bullsh*t.” NCMEC analysts are shielded from laws against viewing CSAM. That’s a privilege granted by the state to assist law enforcement. Therefore, when NCMEC analysts view CSAM, they are government actors. It’s a very interesting case, least of all because Gorsuch is an amazing writer. But it makes NCMEC look extremely disengenous, and the governments sponsorship like a way to slide around its obligations. I’m not saying NCMEC is a bad organization. I’m just saying that there is controversy. And NCMEC isn’t merely a private organization. It’s a private organization that has been delegated state powers to assist the state in performing state functions. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/14-3265/14-3265-2016-08-05.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/1...