Sure, so it depends on circumstances in the broader society. The judge needs to be convinced that on balance it's more likely the case that the prosecutor is right than not. That's all probable cause is.
In today's IoT world where basically everybody does all this potentially shady stuff sending encrypted data to who knows where, and with no legislation on the books saying they mustn't, you would not get anywhere trying to obtain a warrant.
But if things like WebThings Gateway were to make that unusual, so that as I said there aren't other Smart TVs sending mysterious stuff directly to HBO - that changes the balance of probabilities, and it also changes the incentive to regulate / legislate behaviours that are now less common and still undesirable so that what they're doing isn't just immoral it's illegal too.
Circumstances change. In 1975 the idea that you shouldn't smoke cigarettes inside a train, deep under the ground, in a crowded city, was a bit weird. By 1983 it was illegal in London. In 1985 somebody who'd cut a few corners and was lighting a cigarette on the escalator out of the Underground caused a fire in which a lot of people died (a lot of other things went wrong, but none of them would have mattered if not for the cigarette). Today when we're trying to explain that fire to children it doesn't make a lot of sense to them. They don't remember it ever being legal to smoke cigarettes inside a building - it smells bad and looks obviously dangerous - why would somebody be doing it not just inside a building but so deep underground?
In today's IoT world where basically everybody does all this potentially shady stuff sending encrypted data to who knows where, and with no legislation on the books saying they mustn't, you would not get anywhere trying to obtain a warrant.
But if things like WebThings Gateway were to make that unusual, so that as I said there aren't other Smart TVs sending mysterious stuff directly to HBO - that changes the balance of probabilities, and it also changes the incentive to regulate / legislate behaviours that are now less common and still undesirable so that what they're doing isn't just immoral it's illegal too.
Circumstances change. In 1975 the idea that you shouldn't smoke cigarettes inside a train, deep under the ground, in a crowded city, was a bit weird. By 1983 it was illegal in London. In 1985 somebody who'd cut a few corners and was lighting a cigarette on the escalator out of the Underground caused a fire in which a lot of people died (a lot of other things went wrong, but none of them would have mattered if not for the cigarette). Today when we're trying to explain that fire to children it doesn't make a lot of sense to them. They don't remember it ever being legal to smoke cigarettes inside a building - it smells bad and looks obviously dangerous - why would somebody be doing it not just inside a building but so deep underground?