It could happen in the physical world. While our safes are far (far, far) from impenetrable (Thanks to heat lances they're more vulnerable than ever), it would be possible to design a safe that thermited its contents once it detected a penetration attempt.
Currently we use layers of safety glass (the stuff that shatters into tiny fragments) holding open a trigger (usually to seal the vault shut to buy time). Make it, instead, trigger a payload, and you have a secure vault in the physical realm.
Highly illegal, I'm sure, but probably used in the underground.
In future cases to define the character of the state? After all, this should present a clear indictment that the State doesn't actually give a fuck for the rights of the accused, and by proxy, the rights of its own people.
What is the legitimacy of a court under tyranny but for the barrel of a loaded gun?
...when even a politician in full candida could admit Yes, I look at naked women. And I choke the bishop. And I call him "your grace" when I do. and it would be about as scandalous as George H. W. Bush not liking broccoli.
Of course I still want it to remain scandalous if a politician is rude to a prospective lover.
Wendy Cockcroft, the BDSM community is full of examples of people who differ, who engage in safe, consensual power exchange and find it contributes to a full, healthy life. And yes, that includes the bottoms.
Given that the BDSM society has been able to break consent down to a science with particulars and spectrums, where the mainstream cannot even get a nonsexual-but-sober discussion of consent into our high-school curricula, I think they have something to teach the rest of us, whether or not we want to play around with restraint and spankings.
Yes, of course you're going to find examples of abuse, but you can't use egregious individual incidents to paint entire swaths of the population. Well, you could, but it's the same logic as most bigotry.
As for those who fetishize having sex with children, most of them know it's dangerous and potentially harmful for the child, and restrain from acting directly on their desires, even when offered by a precocious youngster (compare the massive audience of Call of Duty in contrast to those who join militaries or mercenary groups specifically to go shoot guys).
We have plenty of alternatives to actual child sexual abuse for adults so inclined, including age play. age play, and for most such people, that's plenty enough that they don't have to victimize kids.
Just as we have plenty of safe alternatives for those into indiscriminate murder.
I should clarify this isn't necessarily meant to be an implication that Russia is especially guilty of trafficking in child prostitutes or child porn. During the Soviet collapse there were a lot of women in those territories that were turning to sex work (prostitution, usually, but porn if they could get it) because it was consistent and lucrative work, both rare things at the time.
As a result Russia and Ukraine developed a reputation as a source of porn (much like Sweden in the mid 20th century and California in the late 20th century -- I'm pretty sure West Hollywood is still the porn capital of the world).
In the 90s there was a crackdown of porn produced European and Asian models who were sixteen or seventeen (what was legal in their places of origin) and the solution by most magazines was to claim that the models were eighteen, an approach that was adapted when Russia's international exports of porn was burgeoning.
The legality of computer-rendered children varies from state to state in the US, and in some states from county to county. It qualifies under the same umbrella as lolicon.
Computer-rendered child-porn isn't perfect and still looks like computer rendered child porn.
One of the problems with a law that accepts child-porn art is that some producers of child porn (with real children) will use post processing to make artistic renditions of their photos. One can often tell what is a real drawing vs. a computer render of a drawing based on a photographic image, but with time the technology blurs the lines.
(Of course the Russian approach has been to photograph underaged girls and claim they're eighteen years old, a method that still works.)
I suspect that once CGI children are easy to produce, the demand for child-porn made with actual children will plummet, because most people don't really want to hurt kids. Exceptions exist, but they're the exceptions.
In any case, the FBI is not interested in actual child welfare (e.g. rescuing trafficked sex slaves), they're interested in getting the bad guy, and seem to be content to reach for low-hanging fruit (e.g. the end consumer or the accidental downloader, not traffickers or producers.)
Need to know is not a law-enforcement term. In law enforcement, secrecy is only necessary for covert (sting and undercover) operational intelligence and witness protection (e.g. when the victim is a child or the crime is a sex crime).
Need to know is not a military term either. There is specific operational data that cannot be discussed regarding current operations. We sometimes will also classify technological specifications (e.g. the flight envelope of a given aircraft) to slow the development of specified countermeasures.
Need to know is an term used in espionage agencies that engage primarily in covert operations, when operations can be compromised by even small data leaks.
We've allowed the CIA and NSA to operate with a greater amount of latitude because they engaged (once upon a time) in small operations in order to prevent circumstances from escalating into big operations. We gave them quarter for what were often illegal methods because they were rare.
Not only have the CIA and NSA taken this privilege and expanded to include large operations, but military and law enforcement are adopting the same privileges for their own quotidian protocols.
We're applying espionage policy to agencies and methods that aren't espionage. And these policies are only tolerable (and then only barely) when they're rarely used.
A PERSON has agency. PEOPLE are easily manipulated.
Most of the United States still lives under the illusion that their rights are there if they should ever need them, and only bad people fall on the wrong side of the justice system.
They're also more concerned about the funding for their kids' schools than torture of some guys who are obviously crooks. Our nation is impoverished yet we still vote like we're middle class with stock options.