> By the way, would you still call it harassment if you never got in the way of the person you were following, never acknowledged your presence, and generally l

> By the way, would you still call it harassment if you never got in the way of the person you were following, never acknowledged your presence, and generally let them go about their business while you were busily recording everything they did? Most people would still be very unhappy. Google "paparazzi". Notice the distinctions between a legal claim of privacy intrusion and the legal claim of harassment. And also, notice the legal claim of freedom of the press. Your model of "people with cameras following you around" might sound really novel and clever to you, but we've had such people for a long time. And guess what? In public, no one considers it a privacy intrusion. It's harassment. > Now I'm using arguments that appeal to the aforementioned "common people," and you're jumping in to say they aren't technical enough Technical arguments are not philosophical arguments. Believe it or not, programmers do not have a monopoly on The Right Way To Do Everything. A philosophical argument can depend too much on jargon and be perverted by political spin, this is true. But you can still methodically break it down and explain it to a non-technical person if you've put it together well. Watch http://justiceharvard.org http://justiceharvard.org sometime. Failing to convince someone is your fault, not theirs.