>The argument seems to center around how easy/hard or expensive/cheap the process is. It is about scale of the violation of privacy rights. Take murder...its

>The argument seems to center around how easy/hard or expensive/cheap the process is. It is about scale of the violation of privacy rights. Take murder...its not criminal to think about murder. Its not even criminal to discuss a murder (so long as no "substantial step" is taken). Its not murder if you kill someone, but did not intend to, that would be manslaughter. Intent to kill someone and doing it, that is Murder and is criminal. If one shouts a racial, ethnic, or religious slur while committing murder, then it is both murder and a hate crime. If one organizes the mass killings of groups of people based on race, ethnicity and/or religion at a large enough scale, it is genocide. The law is very capable of distinguishing intent, acts themselves and the scale of acts. Its only these tech companies that wish to muddy the waters by spinning this decision into the court outlawing your right to take photos.