This seems to be a common false logic argument based on an unknown, where the event leads the judgement. "Fault" occurs when someone does something that is agai

This seems to be a common false logic argument based on an unknown, where the event leads the judgement. "Fault" occurs when someone does something that is against the rules and results in an undesirable outcome. They are NOT at fault if nobody observes them doing the thing that is against the rules + nobody else observes the undesirable outcome that resulted in the causality from doing the wrong thing (because nothing happened). Even if someone did observe them breaking the rules, the "fault" doesn't exist until the undesirable outcome occurs and is observed. Arguing that loss of privacy will make things safer is illogical, given loss of privacy creates "inverse causality", or causality created by blaming someone for something before they actually do it in an objective frame. Keep in mind that (us) Buddhists believe we are all a single entity, with very specific discrimination that allows each of us to believe we are also a separate entity with an ego. That ego requires privacy to pull off what it does. The process of "speaking for others" is akin to speculation about someone else's internal subjective frame inside a separate internal subject frame (aka mind's eye) in the observer (the one speaking for the other) BEFORE objective causality occurs. My hypothesis is that, by phrasing the speculation for other entities to consume as if it is an objective fact (which is is not), the "speaker" creates inverse causality event which then spreads in a viral way through the aggregate. See "this video will make you angry" on YouTube. Apologies if this is still a bit rough around the edges logically and semantically. I'm just now getting it down in words and it's still a work in progress...