... that central discussion you talk about is a discussion about the right of privacy itself. Makes no difference to me when and if you personally decide to reveal what I might want to keep private -- *IF* and only *IF* you respect my right to do likewise (or not to do likewise).
The discussion is the right itself, and that right belongs to each and every one of us. ANY encroachment into that right is a violation and *WILL* eventually lead to a loss of that right.
ANY law passed that is designed for the purpose of eroding privacy is a BAD law and is immoral -- provided that an individual in question has not violated someone else's rights.
It's the exact SAME argument to defend the position that one has the right not to be a witness against himself. The WHOLE POINT is you DON'T KNOW what someone else will do with that information.
ME: Were you in Central Park last Tuesday?
YOU: Yes, I was jogging.
ME: Ahah! So you ADMIT that you were at the scene of the crime!
ME: Have you ever used a knife for any purpose?
YOU: Well, yes, I cut food with one all the time.
ME: Ahah! So, you ADMIT you are familiar with the murder weapon!
We just don't know what someone ELSE will do with information, and ESPECIALLY people who have bad intentions against you.
THAT is THE primary discussion, as I see it.
Do you see it differently?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: