3 ms·

So in places where it was a crime, the argument doesn't apply? It seems quite odd to base a moral argument using legal definitions of criminality as those defi

So in places where it was a crime, the argument doesn't apply? It seems quite odd to base a moral argument using legal definitions of criminality as those definitions do change. Consider the absurdity of applying such reasons to a place where certain political protests are illegal. Also, the argument presented does not make a distinction between legal and illegal usage.

tptacek 11y ago
It doesn't matter whether the distinction was made, because there's no reasonable discussion to be had about privacy that doesn't engage with criminality. An argument about an absolute right to privacy is intrinsically an argument about how society should respond to crime. In reality, almost nobody who thinks they believe in an absolute right to privacy really believes that.