[lern_too_spel]

No, they're consistent on what matters. Privacy isn't the be-all and end-all of utility. It's merely one component. Being able to take back money stolen by a crook is something that most people value, and they are happy to pay the privacy cost to get it. A foolish consistency (insisting on absolute consistency for the wrong concept) is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[alphanullmeric]

You are free to sacrifice your own privacy. This discussion is about whether you have the right to forcefully sacrifice mine. You’re only consistent in doing what benefits you, even if that means your support for a policy depends on who is involved and not what it does.

[lern_too_spel]

Yes, I am free to sacrifice yours. That's how laws work. Try to proclaim yourself a sovereign citizen and tell a judge that warrants don't apply to you if you don't believe me. If you don't like laws, there are lawless places like Somalia for you to call home.

I support policies based on what they do. That includes weighing everything they do, not just their effect on privacy.

[alphanullmeric]

Does “it’s the law” apply to all laws?

Does “if you don’t like it then leave” apply to all people?

Are you sure I can’t find a counterexample? You have yet to present a single consistent idea and I doubt either of these will be any different.

You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab. We’ve already established that.

[lern_too_spel]

I presented a consistent idea. Net benefit. It's a consistency that actually makes sense instead of ending up with crooks taking money from everyone and people being unable to stop it because they couldn't understand the concept of laws.

> You will support privacy for one person but not another solely depending on how much money you think you could nab.

Yes, I support less privacy for people being investigated for crimes. Are you really unfamiliar with the concept of a warrant? Everything I've said is really basic stuff, and it's truly mind-boggling that I have to explain it at all.

[alphanullmeric]

So no, “it’s the law” doesn’t apply to you. Answer the question or I’ll answer it for you. Thanks for playing.

[lern_too_spel]

Your question is nonsensical. A law makes sense if it is beneficial. If it isn't, it should be changed. While it is in force, it applies to everyone. This is something that first graders learn at around the same time they're introduced to the idea of democracy. Given the comment votes, it appears you're the only person who still doesn't understand.