No, you don’t get it. They never said that they’ve got nothing to hide. So the rule must be that if you’ve got nothing to hide, spying is okay. But if you have something to hide, it’s not okay. That means that it’s okay to spy on you, but not okay to spy on criminals. Huh. This rule seems rather useless.
“So in reversion of argument, since it’s okay to spy on you because you have nothing to hide, spying on criminals is not ok, because they do have something to hide?”
No, you don’t get it. They never said that they’ve got nothing to hide. So the rule must be that if you’ve got nothing to hide, spying is okay. But if you have something to hide, it’s not okay. That means that it’s okay to spy on you, but not okay to spy on criminals. Huh. This rule seems rather useless.
“So in reversion of argument, since it’s okay to spy on you because you have nothing to hide, spying on criminals is not ok, because they do have something to hide?”
Cleaned it up. Thanks for the argument!
*They got
I could hardly guess WTF theymfot means.