I'm not questioning that it's an inconvenience or that there will be false positives.
I'm pointing out that "mild" is inaccurate.
In ducking my question of how many of these "mild inconveniences" you're willing to pay for, you concede that point.
Let me suggest that the more costly the inconvenience, the lower the acceptable false positive rate. And, if the inconvenience is serious enough, the folks inconvenienced should be compensated. (And, no, you don't get to bargain away the compensation by letting them off of something else that you wouldn't have found without the false positive.)
One benefit from compensating folks who are "inconvenienced" is that forces the relevant parties to do a better job in minimizing the total cost (which is proportional to the false positive rate multiplied by the cost of the inconvenience).
It's amazing how people's priorities depend on who's paying.
In most countries, if the police performs any raid on your premises all costs (e.g. fixing doors) are paid for by the state. I also doubt that the cost of doors is that high (compared to other expenses).
I'm pointing out that "mild" is inaccurate.
In ducking my question of how many of these "mild inconveniences" you're willing to pay for, you concede that point.
Let me suggest that the more costly the inconvenience, the lower the acceptable false positive rate. And, if the inconvenience is serious enough, the folks inconvenienced should be compensated. (And, no, you don't get to bargain away the compensation by letting them off of something else that you wouldn't have found without the false positive.)
One benefit from compensating folks who are "inconvenienced" is that forces the relevant parties to do a better job in minimizing the total cost (which is proportional to the false positive rate multiplied by the cost of the inconvenience).
It's amazing how people's priorities depend on who's paying.