3 ms·
I agree, but there are questions in my head. If the "private" information is that you killed 500 people (you're basically a Dexter), what do we do with that pr
by throwitaway222 3y ago
I agree, but there are questions in my head.
If the "private" information is that you killed 500 people (you're basically a Dexter), what do we do with that private information?
- Georgelemental 3y agoThe right to remain silent is a longstanding principle of Western jurisprudence, as are attorney-client privilege, the Seal of the Confessional, etc.
- sshine 3y agoAssuming “you” kept it to themselves, which “you” probably did for quite a while, we don’t do much with that information, because it’d be private. You can only react to information that you have. Or rather, I don’t understand the question. ;-)
- amflare 3y agoI think the insinuation is that such information has no right to be private. Or such individuals have no right to privacy. The obvious issue being that to enforce this, no one gets a right to privacy. But all in the same of "peace and safety", so don't worry.
- sshine 3y agoEven a serial killer has the right to privacy. What they don’t have is the right to kill people. Those two often get confused! This is particularly embarrassing when you try to open incognito mode in your browser and you accidentally end up killing half a dozen people instead.
- mandibles 3y agoWho is "we"?
- sambazi 3y agowell, if "we" know, it's not private anymore. thou it should not matter