The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

Next issue is going to be whether the government had a warrant to conduct the search,

and there's various exceptions that could be fact specific,

but a warrant supported by a public cause.

Now, I mean, in the way that this system is currently operating,

where all of the content is automatically scanned,

it's impossible to imagine a case where we'd be able to get a warrant to conduct this.

So that's why if it were the government that were conducting the scanning,

and doing this to obtain information about people on the possible prosecute them,

that would eventually be most likely to the suppression of that evidence under the exclusionary law.

I'm Alan Rosenstein, and this is the LawFair podcast, January 20, 2021.

Private entities, in particular technology giants like Internet Service Providers,

email services, and social networks play a vital role in helping law enforcement fight child pornography online.

But the involvement of private entities does not eliminate the fourth amendment issues

that come with electronic surveillance.

In fact, the more that private entities cooperate with the government,

the more likely it is that courts will consider them government agents,

...