Many of the examples you present are considered unlawful or, at the very least, unauthorized use.
I'll risk an analogy (I know, I know) and compare your examples of digital trespass to examples of physical trespass.
If someone can physically enter your (perhaps unlocked) home/place of business/doctor's office, etc. and expropriate copies and originals of documents associated with you--documents that are very likely protected by law as they are in the case of digital documents--would you also assert there is no such thing as something being "private"?
Your argument, to my mind, seems to blame people for having reasonable expectations of privacy and absolving criminals who violate that privacy.
This is another iteration of the usual debate over what is right (or legal) and what is realistic. For example: you should be able to walk through any area anywhere at any time and feel safe; as a practical matter, some areas at some times may lead to violence.
irishcoffee is taking the "don't walk there at that time, everybody knows that" position, and you're taking the "everyone should be able to walk there at any time" position. You're both right, and yet these two positions never ever get reconciled in a productive manner.
> irishcoffee is taking the "don't walk there at that time, everybody knows that" position, and you're taking the "everyone should be able to walk there at any time" position. You're both right, and yet these two positions never ever get reconciled in a productive manner.
irishcoffee is engaging in the victim blaming fallacy, which makes him wrong.
I'm being realistic. If you want something to be private, don't put it on the internet. It's like putting up a bulletin at your local gym, and getting mad when someone from out of state reads the bulletin. It just doesn't make any sense.
"They violated my privacy! I didn't intend for them to see that!"
They didn't. You put private information in a public place. I'm floored how on hn I'm having to describe how the internet works.
I'll risk an analogy (I know, I know) and compare your examples of digital trespass to examples of physical trespass.
If someone can physically enter your (perhaps unlocked) home/place of business/doctor's office, etc. and expropriate copies and originals of documents associated with you--documents that are very likely protected by law as they are in the case of digital documents--would you also assert there is no such thing as something being "private"?
Your argument, to my mind, seems to blame people for having reasonable expectations of privacy and absolving criminals who violate that privacy.
EDIT: Recast caveat/second paragraph. Readability.