Preventing the killing of "several" innocent people is certainly justification for temporarily violating the privacy of some others. If you're 9 for 10 successf

Preventing the killing of "several" innocent people is certainly justification for temporarily violating the privacy of some others. If you're 9 for 10 successful vs unsuccessful invasive searches, that's completely defensible. And I'd grudgingly admit that even if you're just 1 for 10, I mean, it's the remainder of someone's entire life vs 9 people's privacy, you could probably still make the case to allow it. However, it's only the human inability to grasp large numbers that would justify a 3 ("several") for 48 (US) or 330 (world) MILLION Twitter users success to failure rate. Or you use a farcical "infinite value" argument, which is basically equivalent to saying that privacy has zero value.