Yeah sure that's how these things should work, you have no rights until you make a compelling argument why you should have the right.

That's exactly how rights work. In the State of Nature, every behavior is possible, even killing other people. So you make arguments as to why you don't take certain actions; for example, you wouldn't want to be killed, and if you kill someone you expose yourself to stronger people or more people killing you. So we don't kill each other. There's also a moral component of mutual understanding of what its like to be one another, that plays a role too.

So you have to make the argument of why I shouldn't listen in on your cell phone communications.

I clearly have a vested interest in listening in on the cell phone communications of people who might be criminals or terrorists, so what is the compelling personal interest you have, which I share and value, that makes me want to respect a privacy right over the value of the information I obtain from that intrusion?

That is just not true, don't you have a right that grants you this in the US? If so then this is a joke.

Of course you don't.

It's governed by a contract of service. Opening the package in some circumstances is a breach of contract, but its not criminal. Opening the package for contractually covered reasons, is fine. Opening a piece of mail (USPS) is a federal crime.

I'm not talking about the US though, this issue affects the whole world and I luckily don't live in the surveillance state that the US is.

Well, that has nothing to do with this conversation. The only area of discussion within the US is what the US government does inside the US and to US citizens.

To the rest of the world, the US has the sovereign power to watch every single other person. And if other countries want to stop us, they can do so. But we have never agreed not to monitor the world's population, and we'd be frankly stupid not to since it has been repeatedly demonstrated we can't trust foreign governments with policing their own states.

I'll click 'don't send inbox replies' so you don't need to reply. It would be a waste of both of our time, you're clearly not ready to realise how important privacy is and your general attitude is questionable.

I don't really care. I don't think its a waste of time. Wherever you live your society has a different conception of what privacy rights you want to protect. That's fine. But in the US we don't have that, and we will never respect your definition until you make us through economic sanction or force.

Have a good evening and keep your shades open, shades haven't been traditionally around so you can't expect your neighbour not to look at you.

Windows weren't around traditionally. And yes, if you leave your shades open your forego your right to privacy in front of the window. I'm assuming you're in Europe somewhere, because the French don't allow you to film with a telephoto lens through others windows etc... In the US, you absolutely can. If you want that privacy, you close your shades.

If you're open to change your mind though, I reccomend Glenn Greenwals TED talk about privacy

I am open to change. I've seen the talk. I just don't find it persuasive or applicable to modern digital technology.

Privacy is important! One just has to realize that a whole slew of actions today are inherently social and non-private. If you want to limit data collection on certain behaviors, I wouldn't really call that privacy law, but something new.

And personally, I have a lot more of an issue with data collected by private corporations who use it for their own interest, than I do by a government which is ostensibly using it for its citizens interests, of which I am one.