I was always under the impression that these were learning algorithms. The more people that mark something as "spam", the algorithms learn that it must be spam.
If that is the case, I know two things:
1) It's not Goggle [et al.] at fault.
2) Conservatives favor outdated mail systems like Yahoo and Outlook.
I always thought this arrangement was a bit janky. You enforce it, you're a troll. You don't, and you lose it. A really subjective and blurry line of when you should or shouldn't, even with the "within the same product category" requirement.
Slightly off topic but I was thinking about this the other day and wonder if satellite TV and satellite radio don't also suffer from another problem. Does it really make efficient sense to get either from a satellite when there is a cell phone tower or cable tap close by? Sure, satellite may make sense for a network TV feed for an affiliate to grab, but not much else. As for music, why should I pay for a feed all the way from space, when Android Auto serves a Pandora feed to my car just fine?
Since AT&T discovered that a land cable gets a phone call around the world more reliably, I suppose they have to do something with the unused satellite transponders. And I don't think that the broadband from space is going to go far, except for niche situations either.
I think this to be a symptom of too much fear for their own sake. I am 100% for the police being able to perform their jobs and get home at the end of the day. But not at the expense of the general public. I see it as part of their mandate to take risks so that the genal public doesn't have to. If the answer to an adverse situation is a hail of bullets, there is something wrong. I see it as backward that an untrained individual is believed to be able to completely retain their composure more so then a trained professional. The alternative being a civilian gets shot, just for the sake of "better safe then sorry". Most of the time that sentiment is seen as anti-cop. But I would be surprised if that is the norm for private security. I would think that a private security firm would be reluctant to field an individual that poses that kind of professional liability.
I think the real question here is, "what does someone need to see in the performance of their jobs?". This is true in any profession. We all have people who come into our own homes to provide services and give private information to others for the same reason.
In the case of law enforcement, would we want them to be more proactive or reactive? We could have the utmost in privacy if police stayed at the station and only made an appearance when called. They would be dealing with crime instead of preventing it. A speedster can then get away with it until he causes a fatality and then pays the price. A sad consolation to those others involved.
There is a line to be drawn here, and there are benefits and pitfalls, where ever that is. There have been case studies that have proven that increased patrolling does not impact crime as much as one would think, but the increased presence does give the perception of less safety. (Look it up.)
I'm not making an argument that we need more or less. (I think less.) But, we all need to decide how much is too much and live with the benefits/consequences, regardless. This case provides just the discussion needed. Congratulations to all of you for the good comments on this.
I didn't read the paper you mentioned, but you are correct in the misgivings about the whole, "I've got nothing to hide" thing. The thinking is backward, especially when a cop tells you that.
A true criminal has absolutely nothing to lose, except his freedom (aka incarceration). In contrast, someone on the other end of the scale, like a law enforcement officer has everything to lose. Hence, things like his personal address etc. are not public knowledge, out of a matter of necessity (aka. concern of retaliation).
Your average citizen is more toward that higher end of the scale, not the lower. When someone says, "they have nothing to hide", what they actually mean is, "I have nothing to hide from the government". That too is a foolish notion, but it explains things like the decisions we make every day about to whom to provide information about social security numbers, credit cards numbers, etc.
I thought to that this seemed like a waste of money. I was going to mention that in my comments above. But I had a second thought. What would be more expensive?
1) Having several cops in helicopters.
2) Having a multitude more, covering things on the ground.
Since wages are the biggest expense, 1) is the most cost effective. You aren't missing anything, money wise. As a side note, maybe someone higher up has also made the realization that some of these rank and file officers don't have the professionalism to deal with the public properly in regards to force and keeping them at arms length until actually needed, might save on a few lost lawsuits later.
I had this exact discussion the other day, only about homicide. "Why didn't the [bias] media cover this murder?" My reply was, was are any of them even news worthy? (Too many to cover them all.) The point being...bias in the choice, yes because covering them all in impractical/impossible.
To directly answer your question... since Snowden, the Feds are looking at them all. No bias there. At the federal level the 4th Amendment is already dead. And property rights are dead at all levels (Civil Asset Forfeiture). If this is the biggest fish you have to fry, you're just not paying attention.