The difference you and I have is that you seem to be arguing law and I'm arguing right and wrong. The two have a disappointing degree of correlation in many ju

The difference you and I have is that you seem to be arguing law and I'm arguing right and wrong. The two have a disappointing degree of correlation in many jurisdictions. In some culturally regressive countries, the law is used to prosecute the victims of rape. Such law is wrong and immoral... but in those countries it's the law and as a real victim on a moral level you are not "safe" from the law as you say. My argument about what is right and wrong comes from the fact that I do not lose the right to use my property when it is stolen and the criminal loses certain rights when they voluntarily commit a theft. Of course the likely most sensible case is to use tracking, monitoring, etc as you suggest to bring the criminal to justice. But, if you steal a device that can be remotely controlled and monitor you: you lose the right to privacy because part of your theft was to invite me (by way of my property) into your life. The victim didn't ask to be invited, but the criminal made sure the victim was there. By the way, there's a lot worse the criminal gives up at the moment of theft: the right not to be assaulted by me is lost... take my phone a start to run away, I may well cause you to trip and injure yourself to protect my property: I exercise retaliatory force to defend my property, and because you initiated force to take the phone (not necessarily direct violence) you loose the right to be protected from such action. Again: this is moral argument, not necessarily legal... there are plenty of laws around the world more willing to make a victim the criminal and the criminal the victim on criteria going well beyond any willful act (social status, group identity, etc.).