Let me just make absolutely clear: It's not my opinion that certain people don't deserve privacy, it is the law of the land, duly enacted and ratified by legitimate governments.
> The next big issue is that there are people who do not have a right to privacy. In many countries this includes children, prisoners, stock-traders, flight-controllers, first responders and so on.
and a comment in this thread
> And I fundamentally disagree with the premise that there are people who do not deserve privacy. I can not think of a single person I would wish complete exposure of their lives upon. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9454402)
caused me to misinterpret that. Do not have a right != Do not deserve. I am very sorry that I implied something that is not true. I am editing my original post to clarify this.
How many mentions do companies get in national constitutions ?
They're not mentioned one single time in the US or the Danish Constitutions, yet, both countries they more or less run government now.
UN's human rights don't mention them either.
Companies have no claim to human rights, like privacy, because they are not humans.
And if you think all humans, no matter what, should have a universal, unabbridgable right to privacy: Vote in your elections, and if nobody is worthy of your vote, get yourself elected instead.
But right now there are fully valid laws that says certain classes of humans do not get privacy, and the government which enacted those laws are legit, elected and have every right to enforce their laws.
I get that at the moment some don't get privacy. I meant the "deserve it the least" part. It seems to contradict "It's not my opinion that certain people don't deserve privacy".
I don't think deserving privacy has a scale. I understand your "deserve least" as "I'd rather they didn't have privacy". Feel free to correct me.
> The next big issue is that there are people who do not have a right to privacy. In many countries this includes children, prisoners, stock-traders, flight-controllers, first responders and so on.
and a comment in this thread
> And I fundamentally disagree with the premise that there are people who do not deserve privacy. I can not think of a single person I would wish complete exposure of their lives upon. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9454402)
caused me to misinterpret that. Do not have a right != Do not deserve. I am very sorry that I implied something that is not true. I am editing my original post to clarify this.