[qwytw]

> How you consider this not comparable in privacy invasiveness?

How is that comparable to having access to someone's personal communication? What's so particularly private about the 'inside' of anyone's body? Physically checking the outside seems much more invasive. But yeah, overall I agree that compromises can and should be made in certain cases when the potential harm to society might outweigh certain individual rights (I don't see how that might be the case in this situation).

> Please your own take. That comment didn't contribute anything useful.

I don't agree and to be fair more or less the same can be said about your previous comment.

> You realize you are putting your own thoughts in another person's head?

No. I'm trying to infer what thoughts might exist in another person's head when they do or say certain things. I don't really understand what are you implying (that we should never assume that no politicians have any hidden agendas and they they all are perfectly honest?)

[throwaway290]

> What's so particularly private about the 'inside' of anyone's body

Seriously? If your body is not private to you, then what's so particularly private about your communication?

> I don't agree

That's not an answer to "how would they go about it if their goal was to actually combat child abuse, as opposed to some conspiracy to surveil that you imagine"

> I'm trying to infer what thoughts might exist in another person's head when they do or say certain things

Exactly. It is what you think they think, not what they think, and such says more about your mind than theirs.