We can't ask whether it's justified if we don`t know it's happening. Investigating a potential problem requires recognition that there may be a problem. That's

We can't ask whether it's justified if we don`t know it's happening. Investigating a potential problem requires recognition that there may be a problem. That's what's happening here -- investigation. I'm surprised you find that controversial. Sometimes investigations start with the regulators, and sometimes they start with members of the public. We shouldn't have to wait for the regulators to change the regulations before we're allowed to ask "what's going on here?" In fact, what reason is there to change any regulation if there's no perception of a problem, nor desire by anybody to see it changed? You seem to be arguing that anything that is not explicitly prohibited by regulations should be acceptable to the public. If people can't regulate themselves to at least some degree, this means we'd have to explicitly codify all "good behaviour". This is unworkable, and frankly undesirable.