You're literally denouncing the 4th amendment. You're saying that all of us must submit to warrantless and broad searches because the statistics says that at least some crime must be occurring. Absurd.

Or is it that there is an intermediary involved? Are you saying that banks that offer safety deposit boxes are responsible for their contents? Also absurd.

So 1984 style listening devices and cameras in every home is the obvious solution right? Houses are where a lot of abuse happens. Scanning doesn’t even stop abuse from happening, just the possession and distribution of it.

Thank you for illustrating my point about the poisoned well. Say "Don't participate in crimes" and it gets morphed into 1984.

Most people aren’t doing crimes. Roads are used to traffic drugs but we don’t hold the state accountable nor do we setup checkpoints within country to inspect cars for illegal material because some % of cars do.

If your point is that privacy advocates aren’t considering the negative aspects of technology I’m sure they have but see these efforts as a reach towards more state surveillance.