Privacy!!! Q#7

McCloskey defended his idea of “Lawbreakers have no genuine right to privacy” (Pg. 6, The Virtuous Spy) with a pretty good example. The example he used was a typical affair between an underage girl and an older man, and the father sought it right to spy on them because he suspected that the older man was out to seduce his daughter. McCloskey stated that the father couldn’t be accused of invasion of privacy because, the older man’s actions “ ‘had put that area of his life outside the area of privacy’ “(Pg. 6, The Virtuous Spy).  The main right the lawbreakers forfeit is the right of privacy. Since he stepped out of their own are of privacy to invade that of someone else, they are guilty of invading someone else privacy thus forfeiting their own right of privacy. However, I do not fully agree with McCloskey’s statement “lawbreakers have no genuine right to privacy”. As Allen states, “wrongdoers do have some legitimate expectation of privacy” (Pg. 7, The Virtuous Spy). These “expectation of privacy” deals with other things outside the bounds of what ever they did wrong. The example Allen used was “relationships with their therapist and lawyers” (Pg. 6, The Virtuous Spy). If a father is investigating a suspected older man dating his daughter who is a minor, the father has no right to do stuff such as breaking and entering into the suspects home and raid their belongings to find out what their day to day activities are.  These actions aren’t ethical. An example Allen gives us is “Just because someone has robbed millions from a bank, it does not follow that any effective means of extracting proof will be warranted--torture, for example, would be unethical”  “(Pg. 7, The Virtuous Spy). There are limits to how much one can spy. Only a certain amount can be permitted.