One way or another, they are facilitating (in fact profiting from) one human to forcibly access a sensitive device belonging to another human, with the consent of the latter.
The sex offender "spectre" completely changes that because privacy is a "qualified right" that is appropriate to violate in some circumstances.
Under the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to privacy is, in effect, contained in Article 8, the right to respect for family and private life. It is important to know that it is also a “qualified” right. That means it is not absolute, and can be interfered with in certain limited situations, for example to protect national security or freedom of expression. However, any interference has to be necessary and proportionate.
No, but "by law enforcement" aspect does. We gave government and specifically law enforcement the ability to disregard the privacy and certain rights of certain people in certain conditions - in this case a criminal's right to privacy after or during a criminal act.
It's like saying that because hidden recording devices can be abused it should be illegal (or at least one should be ashamed of) to create it.
Comments
One way or another, they are facilitating (in fact profiting from) one human to forcibly access a sensitive device belonging to another human, with the consent of the latter.
The sex offender spectre doesn't change that.
The sex offender "spectre" completely changes that because privacy is a "qualified right" that is appropriate to violate in some circumstances.
https://rightsinfo.org/the-right-to-privacy-and-why-it-matte...
No, but "by law enforcement" aspect does. We gave government and specifically law enforcement the ability to disregard the privacy and certain rights of certain people in certain conditions - in this case a criminal's right to privacy after or during a criminal act.
It's like saying that because hidden recording devices can be abused it should be illegal (or at least one should be ashamed of) to create it.