> We don’t know how many of those children were subsequently rescued, but a question worth posing to anyone unilaterally opposed to Google’s approach is how big

> We don’t know how many of those children were subsequently rescued, but a question worth posing to anyone unilaterally opposed to Google’s approach is how big that number would have to be to have made it worthwhile? [..] how big the number of false positives would have to be to shut the whole thing down? There's nothing worse or more myopic than this kind of "pragmatic", numerical approach towards liberty. As if living in a panopticon cage is desirable, as long as the wardens never make a mistake. Why is it myopic? Well, if being forced to use technology that betrays its user is okay as long as one number is sufficiently larger than another, then why not force all new houses to come with indoor microphones and cameras, always listening and watching - only for the most heinous crimes, of course! Are you "unilaterally opposed" to such a measure, despite how much sexual abuse and domestic violence and murder it would prevent? What about tracking and shock collars for everyone? How much violence could be stopped if everyone was forced to wear those! Don't like it? Not even if the false positive rate was zero?