admissibility

Expands a bit more on what a heuristic is, admissibility and includes source on GitHub of a cpp implementation of the algorithm.

This can also be challenged when the NSA defends the admissibility of its criminal evidence in a suppression hearing.

Whether the defendant has a separate civil claim against the violator is a different question, but it has no bearing on the admissibility of the evidence in the criminal prosecution.

There's not even much about admissibility (which is not always used in game settings).

That has nothing to do with evidence admissibility but could still be damaging to your case if the prosecutor finds out about it.

Or maybe this was about getting sued under privacy laws rather than admissibility...

After the experience, I completely understand why this class serves as a proxy for medical school admissibility.

It wasn't my intent to be communicating anything about admissibility of evidence.

The discussion of heuristics includes only information about admissibility and not consistency.

There have been entire cases based on the admissibility of evidence.

It says nothing about admissibility in court, despite your implication.

My point is that, for the purposes of justice, the exact same standards should apply to government agents and private individuals in the matter of admissibility of evidence.

I can imagine a drug dealer's defence lawyer having fun questioning the admissibility of evidence that had been "corrupted by Russian hackers" in front of a non-technical judge and jury though...

However, the exclusionary rule is only applicable to one with a "reasonable expectation of privacy." In the hypothetical, C does not have such an expectation, and therefore C cannot challenge the admissibility of the evidence notwithstanding the statute.

Admissibility doesn't say that a comb's teeth will point entirely to primes infinitely often, it merely says (as you quoted) that there's no obvious reason its teeth won't point entirely to primes infinitely often.