[justinjlynn]

As though the invasion of privacy might be acceptable depending on who's committing the act... and how much or how often they do it and for what reasons. If it unjust, it's unjust; it doesn't matter if its China or any of the Five Eyes members doing it, it's still just as wrong.

[arcticfox]

> As though the invasion of privacy might be acceptable ... depending ... for what reasons. If it's unjust, it's unjust

I don't really agree with this. Intentions matter; the act of breaking into a house is way different if it's done to stop an in-progress assault vs. commit one.

It can obviously be argued in the actual scenario we're discussing how benevolent / evil / potentially unknowable the actors we're talking about actually are, but I don't think intention is irrelevant.

[justinjlynn]

Justification means it is not unjust. That's the point. That's going to vary depending on the culture in which the violation is occurring - as it should.

It's not really the intention that matters, but the circumstances motivating the action initially.

Example: murder in the course of self defence as "justifiable homicide" or the warranted tapping of someone's phone under supervision of the judiciary

The issue occurs here because those traditional national lines, which happen to also include cultural lines, are themselves being violated and we have no effective incidental means of addressing or justifying the act.

[godelski]

I definitely disagree with this. I'd change af's analogy though. There is a difference between someone breaking into your house and looking around and someone breaking into your house and confiscating things. Neither are good, they are just different degrees of bad.