The end does NOT justify the means. It takes more courage and more discipline to apply the rules of civilized society to *everyone* than to run amok like a nation of thuggish authoritarian vigilantes. It appears we share a fundamental difference of opinion.
As I see it, your end is to protect your definition of a person's "right to privacy". The means you employ include seeking to render inadmissible any evidence of guilt resulting from your perceived violation of that right. Anyone who does not share your opinion is responsible for contributing to the creation of "a nation of thuggish authoritarian vigilantes".
Consider me a proud thug.
To prove he's cool, a teen with a good-boy reputation accepts a dare to break into mean ol' Mr. Smith's house and change all of his lightbulbs to pink. While frantically going about his prank, he discovers a young child bound, muffled, apparently abused and chained to a bed. Also in the room are video and photographic equipment. A monitor is looping a video of someone raping the child. The horrified teen knows he'll be in trouble but he calls the police anyway.
The child is traumatized beyond speaking and can not testify. The pedophile was careful enough to not leave condemning DNA evidence on the child. The only indisputable proof that Mr. Smith did anything to the child is what is in the room. Mr. Smith knows his rights. And he is clever enough to have a story that he knows is implausible but that can only be disproven by the evidence in the room.
There can be no argument that the teen violated your idea of the owner's right to privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Stradivarius, we're on the same page (even if it is a virtual page).
As I see it, your end is to protect your definition of a person's "right to privacy". The means you employ include seeking to render inadmissible any evidence of guilt resulting from your perceived violation of that right. Anyone who does not share your opinion is responsible for contributing to the creation of "a nation of thuggish authoritarian vigilantes".
Consider me a proud thug.
To prove he's cool, a teen with a good-boy reputation accepts a dare to break into mean ol' Mr. Smith's house and change all of his lightbulbs to pink. While frantically going about his prank, he discovers a young child bound, muffled, apparently abused and chained to a bed. Also in the room are video and photographic equipment. A monitor is looping a video of someone raping the child. The horrified teen knows he'll be in trouble but he calls the police anyway.
The child is traumatized beyond speaking and can not testify. The pedophile was careful enough to not leave condemning DNA evidence on the child. The only indisputable proof that Mr. Smith did anything to the child is what is in the room. Mr. Smith knows his rights. And he is clever enough to have a story that he knows is implausible but that can only be disproven by the evidence in the room.
There can be no argument that the teen violated your idea of the owner's right to privacy.
In your utopian vision, what happens?