> They failed to give a example of how this harmed children ... I just don't really understand what we are trying to protect and what the big deal is. A few th

> They failed to give a example of how this harmed children ... I just don't really understand what we are trying to protect and what the big deal is. A few thoughts about this argument, which many people bring up: 1) Many people value their privacy; it might not be universal (though I think everyone does to some degree) but it's widespread and has been enshrined in law and custom across many (I suspect all) cultures. 2) Information is power. I don't have to explain why on HN (I hope). People who control information about you have power over you, to varying degree. Information also has value and should not be taken without consent (which is financial harm, arguably). 3) Some argue that if loss of privacy results in no physical or financial harm then it results in no harm. If you think through this argument, clearly there are other universally recognized kinds of harm. For example, the following might result in no physical or financial harm: Sexual assault, kidnapping, home invasion, theft (if the assets are returned soon), if I caused your spouse to divorce you or family to disown you, installation of malware on your computer, etc. I think the question of the harm in an invasion of privacy is an interesting and valuable philosophical one to consider, but I feel it's a bit disingenuous to propose seriously that privacy has no value.