|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway290
990 days ago
|
|
|
> not comparable Airport security literally checks the inside of your body (if they want to) through xray or other means. How you consider this not comparable in privacy invasiveness? > By actually directly targeting it as the other comment describes Please your own take. That comment didn't contribute anything useful. > Are you implying there is something fundamentally wrong with that? I can't believe this is a question. You realize you are putting your own thoughts in another person's head? |
|
|
How is that comparable to having access to someone's personal communication? What's so particularly private about the 'inside' of anyone's body? Physically checking the outside seems much more invasive. But yeah, overall I agree that compromises can and should be made in certain cases when the potential harm to society might outweigh certain individual rights (I don't see how that might be the case in this situation).
> Please your own take. That comment didn't contribute anything useful.
I don't agree and to be fair more or less the same can be said about your previous comment.
> You realize you are putting your own thoughts in another person's head?
No. I'm trying to infer what thoughts might exist in another person's head when they do or say certain things. I don't really understand what are you implying (that we should never assume that no politicians have any hidden agendas and they they all are perfectly honest?)