I mentioned witness testimony as somewhat legitimate simply because it is opt in in nature. The rest is assuredly not opt in. This is the very basic argument:

I mentioned witness testimony as somewhat legitimate simply because it is opt in in nature. The rest is assuredly not opt in. This is the very basic argument: if I don't opt in, you do not have a right to my private affairs, details, papers, movements or discussions with others. If you want to argue we live in an imperfect world full of grey areas and need to sometimes give up some general privacy for the greater good and safety of the people then do so, and I will likely agree with you on a lot of the justifications to concede that privacy. Just don't for a second think that those individual concessions instantly justify all others. That like your original position is just far too many logical fallacies to even begin to unpack.