You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it.

Further, I didn't say that. You claimed it about me. I asked a specific question you are refusing to answer.

You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it. — AmadeusD

You clearly state:

In the scenario i just gave you, what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

Stating it is nothing for one to possess another's personal information, without something more.

If it's nothing, then you'd not hesitate to do so. It's nothing, therefore there's no obstacle, you should easily be able demonstrate something is nothing to you by simply doing it.

Obviously it isn't nothing to you, and is why you don't do it, because you're a liar.

As for your question, I had already answered it and it's just tedious to answer it again, even more tedious to answer to someone pretending to know something about the law, so incredibly ignorant as to state:

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out. — AmadeusD

Something more is not required in terms of compromising someone's privacy (personal data in this case), as I've already stated:

Compromising someone's data, violating the law that is the GDPR and a bunch of other laws, is by definition harmful and causes suffering (one must worry how one's data maybe abused). — boethius

The reason invasion of privacy is a crime is because it causes suffering even if there is no "physical harm". If I secretly watch you undress while you believe you are in a private space and not being watched, that is a crime even though I haven't done "something more" to cause you physical pain or cause you to lose property.

Why is invasion of privacy a crime? Because there is a feeling of violation when your personal space is not respected.

And maybe reflect on your own critical thinking skills as you obviously know invasion of privacy is a crime and yet there is 'nothing more'; the suffering is a purely psychological response to having been watched when you thought you had privacy. If I watched you undress without your knowledge while you expected privacy, but that happens to turn you on then you have actually benefited and not suffered, but it being "nothing to you" and actually a benefit is completely irrelevant to it still being illegal. Most people suffer from it and that is the reason it is a crime.

In the case of data, it is also an invasion of privacy; people have a reasonable expectation that their medical information, and ID, and court documents and so on, are kept private. There is the same feeling of violation if someone gains access to them who shouldn't.

In addition to the basic privacy violation in the case of child protection data there is the further suffering of all involved (children and guardians) of needing to worry about whether the data being compromised can be used for further harms (as I already explained).

The logic that invading someone's privacy is not harmful because "nothing's been done with it yet" is definitely the logic of a sociopath, and the reason cluster-B folks tend not to respect boundaries as they don't see the harm in it. FYI.

Lying is also a cluster-B personality trait.

I'm not a doctor, but I can definitely diagnose you with stupid.

I see you continue to refuse to answer the simple question posed. OK then. That is a shame.

You made the claim. Stop answering with questions, and answer the one posed to you. Nothing in your responses gives me any reason to think you have an answer to this.

What have i suffered? This requires an actual answer, not continuous prevarication. My claim is it is nothing. I cannot prove a negative. You must convince me that you receiving information out of my personal email account results, prima facie, in my suffering.

A: You receive some clandestine information about me.
B: Nothing else has happened, as I gave this scenario and I am telling you this.
C: Where's the suffering ??

You do not have an answer it seems. Have a go! Your answer is restricted to responding to this scenario. If you move beyond this scenario, you are not answering the question/challenge.

You state, without qualification that C should be my suffering. Where is it?

↪boethius I see you continue to refuse to answer the simple question posed. OK then. That is a shame. — AmadeusD

I've answered it multiple times. It's a shame you can't read simple sentences and also don't know anything about the law despite pretending to.

Compromising someone's personal data is a violation of their right to privacy and causes suffering in Western jurisprudence; the reason it is illegal to drill a hole through the wall of the women's locker room and spy on them, which you obviously know is illegal and yet does not meet your condition of "something more" in terms of causing some physical harm or damaging property (of the women being spied on; drilling a random hole a separate matter).

It's illegal because it causes suffering to invade people's privacy.

Personal data, in particular medical data and so on, is also private and compromising someone's privacy causes the same kind of suffering as in the example above.

Why it's illegal to hack into someone's email even if you "don't do anything with it". Of course, compromising people's privacy enables further harms, but the compromising of the privacy is also harmful in itself (and why it's illegal).

I've explained that multiple times, when this erroneous idea was first brought up and then multiple times after that.

What have i suffered? This requires an actual answer, not continuous prevarication. My claim is it is nothing. I cannot prove a negative. You must convince me that you receiving information out of my personal email account results, prima facie, in my suffering. — AmadeusD

Again, if you're talking about yourself, maybe you suffer nothing because you don't care about your own privacy. However, to spy on you and invade your privacy (your private physical space or hack into your data) is still illegal and you can press charges whether you've actually suffered from it or not. The reason it is illegal despite you claiming not to suffer, or then claiming not to understand how you've suffered, if because nearly everyone else suffers when their privacy is invaded.

It's honestly concerning that you seem to not understand that people value their privacy and if it is compromised by accident, negligence or intentionally they suffer from that. The suffering can be quite intense as they may develop a long lasting trauma response to such events.

A: You receive some clandestine information about me.
B: Nothing else has happened, as I gave this scenario and I am telling you this.
C: Where's the suffering ?? — AmadeusD

You may not suffer if you don't care about your privacy, but this would cause suffering to most people knowing that I have their private personal information when I shouldn't.

As I've stated already multiple times, the suffering also requires becoming aware of the invasion of privacy.

You do not have an answer it seems. Have a go! Your answer is restricted to responding to this scenario. If you move beyond this scenario, you are not answering the question/challenge. — AmadeusD

This is like the fifth or sixth time I've answered why invasion of privacy (in digital form or another) causes most people suffering and that suffering is why it is illegal.

And you obviously understand that you'd suffer if I had all your personal data even if I did nothing with it, just knowing that I know private things about you that I shouldn't know would cause you some suffering as well as the suffering of needing to worry about what I may do with the information that may cause you further harm.

Because you understand that, it's obviously not "nothing" for me to have your personal information or then you'd just send it to me if it really was nothing to you as you say.

It's nothing to me to write down right here "fabricateous" and so I do so without hesitation.

fabricateous

I did it again, because it really is nothing to me to write down this word and I can demonstrate that easily and without hesitation.

The meaning of saying something is "nothing" for you to do means exactly that, it's nothing to you, there's no hesitation to do it.

For example, if I'm at a bar and someone asks if they can sit beside me, and I say "it's nothing to me if you sit there" then the implication is that they need not hesitate to sit there. If they proceed with their sitting plan and I interrupt them to say "woe, woe, woe, what are you doing, you can't sit there until you answer my questions ... that you haven't answered!!" then obviously it's not nothing to me that they sit there, but has conditions that are more than nothing.

The present situation is even worse, as not only do you demand I satisfy conditions for you to demonstrate it's "nothing" to you that I have all your personal information, but I satisfy your demands and still you don't demonstrate it's nothing to you by doing it.

Imagine after accusing this fellow bar goer of not answering my questions (let's say from a previous conversation) and of obviously he can't sit beside me at the bar until those questions are answered, all while claiming it's nothing to me if he sits there, and then the man does answer my questions and I still refuse to allow him to sit beside me.

Obviously I don't permit him to sit because I have issue with it, and it's not nothing to me. If it was nothing I'd make no conditions, answering questions or any other, as it's nothing to me, conditions would be something. My saying it's nothing to me and then obstructing the thing I say is nothing to me from happening, is called a bluff. It's obviously something to me but I don't want to admit it so resort to gaslighting and bullshit to avoid the thing in question from happening.

will be metered out. — AmadeusD

It is 'meted' not 'metered'.

Reminds me of how everyone online always uses 'hear hear'. I don't think I remember seeing that one written properly. :)

I've answered it multiple times. It's a shame you can't read simple sentences and also don't know anything about the law despite pretending to. — boethius

I see you immediately devolve into insults and ad hominems. Interesting.

I am telling you that you have said nothing that answers the question: What suffering am I undergoing in the scenario i gave you.

You haven't answered this. THe rest is not much my problem.

You may not suffer if you don't care about your privacy, but this would cause suffering to most people knowing that I have their private personal information when I shouldn't.

As I've stated already multiple times, the suffering also requires becoming aware of the invasion of privacy. — boethius

And now you seek to sneak in answers you refused to give previously. Gotcha.

Here's the 'something extra' i, multple times, noted was required. You now accept it. Great!

I see you immediately devolve into insults and ad hominems. Interesting. — AmadeusD

What's insulting is lying.

Obviously my having your personal data is not "nothing" to you, otherwise you would do it.

You lie about it (for honestly difficult to discern reasons) and insult me and everyone here, excepting those who also think it's fine to compromise children's private data.

And now you seek to sneak in answers you refused to give previously. Gotcha. — AmadeusD

This was already answered.

Is there any actual evidence that any children have suffered because of what you explained?
— Sir2u

First of all, compromising people's data is itself harmful, which then, in itself, causes the suffering of needing to worry about how one's data could be used for ill, once one is made aware of the data breach (as required under the GDPR). If you knew your ID and medical history was stolen that would cause suffering even if the data theft is never exploited to commit further crimes against you. — boethius

Then I answer the same question several more times.

There is zero sneaking about.

As for your claim that it is nothing to you if I have your personal information, if you were not lying about it then you would just send it to me.

If it was nothing to you, you'd have no hesitation to do it. You would need nothing answered at all, you would simply demonstrate that it is nothing to you by doing it.

And lying for what? To defend an entire group of child welfare corporations sending EU child information outside the EU and into the possession of some anonymous individual in the US?

You insult yourself by your own words and actions, my pointing it out is simply truth and accuracy.

You have devolved into someone not worth exchanging with. That's a shame, as some months back you were consistently contributing well across multiple areas of the forum.

Take care of yourself.

Also, pretending now you were simply asking a question, rather than claiming to know the law and will teach me is further annoying bad faith.

You make some bold claims:

I've asked what suffering. You've not answered.

You receive information from my personal email account (clandestine, we assume). What have I suffered ? I shall short-cut this.

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out. — AmadeusD

Which are not true, but if you happened to believe they were actually true and my having your data was nothing to you (which, fine, maybe you personally don't mind) you would not hesitate to demonstrate that by sending me your data.

But you don't, because it is something to you and you recognize that something is that you would suffer if I had all your personal data, therefore you avoid that happening.

Why lie about it, unclear. Why keep going on about my not answering your questions, and ad homonyms, and so on, also unclear.

What is clear is that you are clearly lying when you state it is nothing to you if I had all your personal data.

↪boethius You have devolved into someone not worth exchanging with. That's a shame, as some months back you were consistently contributing well across multiple areas of the forum.

Take care of yourself. — AmadeusD

Who's not worth discussing with is someone who is bad faith: gaslighting, deflecting, wasting time, and so on, and the only appropriate response is to call out such bad faith and make clear it is not respectable.

You ask:

What suffering? — AmadeusD

Skipping over the part where I already explained that, but that's fine as I could just quote myself if I didn't want to write it again.

I then answer the question again, responding directly to your question:

Invasion of privacy in itself causes suffering under Western jurisprudence and I would also argue just as a fact regardless of what our legal system says about it.

Which is why invasion of privacy is a crime. Of course, the suffering is once the victim knows about it. — boethius

You then claim I am wrong:

I've asked what suffering. You've not answered.

You receive information from my personal email account (clandestine, we assume). What have I suffered ? I shall short-cut this.

I haven't. Something more is required. Most Western Law even requires harm or damage to be established before a conviction or punishment will be metered out. — AmadeusD

If you're claim was good faith (i.e. something you at least believed to be true) then you'd have no problem demonstrating exactly what you claim; that it would be nothing to you, cause zero suffering, if I had all your personal information ... ok so hand it over. That wouldn't resolve the issue of whether it is illegal or not to compromise people's data, but it would at least demonstrate you do at least believe it is not harmful to anyone including yourself.

Ok, then send me your ID and complete medical information if it's nothing to you that I have it. — boethius

Up until now, you've asked me your question, rejected my answer and provided your own.

We're debating, fine, great.

However, to keep in good faith, you must either demonstrate your claim that my having your information is nothing to you, or then retract your claim and recognize it's clearly not nothing to you.

Instead, you claim I haven't answered your question (which I've clearly done multiple times), then keep claiming I haven't answered your question.

As I explain above, if it was actually nothing to you then you wouldn't need me to answer your questions first, but even if that was someone a reasonable condition to make on something that is nothing to you, I clearly answered your question both before and after ... and yet you still do not send me all your personal data and also don't retract your claim.

The reason it's important to respond to bad faith with disrespect is that it is the only way to the truth of the matter, that you are simply lying about what is and is not nothing to you, then pretending not to understand your own position and adding conditions (which are something) to it being nothing to you, and conditions which are not sufficient, as you still don't send me your data even after that condition is met.

It's also important to demonstrate that bad faith tactics are not "clever" but sub-optimal methods of discourse.

Also because it's also annoying, an ad hominem requires both insulting someone's character, in one way or another, as well as using that to deflect from the substance of the issue.

If you deal with substance and also disrespect your interlocutor, that's not an ad hominem but rather simply answering the contentions and making it clear you don't respect the person as well: it's just two factual claims.

What you do is ad hominem:

↪boethius You could answer the question, please good sir, instead of prevaricating.

In the scenario i just gave you, what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

Instead of dealing with the substance of are you going to send me all your personal data to demonstrate it really is "nothing" to you, you accuse me of bad faith.

You attack my intentions, accuse me of prevaricating and so avoiding the substance of the issue, to avoid yourself dealing with the substance which is: obviously you're not going to send me all your personal information as obviously doing so would cause you psychological suffering (to one degree or another) in addition to putting you in danger of further harms (and so also the psychological suffering of needing to worry about that).

That is ad hominem.

Which then you simply double down on:

↪boethius You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it. — AmadeusD

And then keep going, all while adding that you are existing the conversation due to my base character.

You're the one making the incredibly bold claim that it would be "nothing" to you not only that I had all your information but I stole it, of which the natural reply to such a bold claim is to ask for a demonstration.

If I suddenly made the bold claim that I could talk to anyone in the world telepathically, I'm pretty sure you and pretty much everyone here would immediately respond "well do it then! talk to us!", as that's the common sense response to such a bold claim.

You accuse me of what you're doing.

Every accusation is a confession with you types.

However, you're not alone in your devotion to the ad hominem cause, since while we're at it:

↪boethius Given your bend-over-backwards defense of Russia, it's hard to take your child welfare concerns seriously. — RogueAI

Is also an ad hominem of attacking the messenger rather than dealing with the substance of the GDPR breaches and their relation to child trafficking. And what sort of argument is this?

That even if we assume the GDPR breaches described in the OP are real and serious, if I am not pro-Ukraine enough (by which we mean pro-Zelensky apart from the welfare of actual Ukrainians, naturally) then we just have to let these Finnish compromising of child welfare systems slide and accept children may have and may continue to be trafficked in relation to the GDPR breach described?

This whole conversation is profoundly disturbing.

Please don't lie. What I said was this

what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

and you've provided absolutely nothing to move that needle. You cannot name a single 'suffering' i endure by you receiving my personal information. You are getting extremely agitated by having to answer a simple question directly related to your contention.

Then then snuck in the something more (that I know about it) and assumed that would cause suffering. Deceitful, assumptive and wrong. You squirmed.

This is why you are not worth engaging with. You are being dishonest, uninteresting and avoiding the challenge entirely. These are facts.

↪boethius Please don't lie. What I said was this — AmadeusD

I've literally cited you saying exactly:

what have i suffered, without something more? It's nothing, isn't it? — AmadeusD

The immediately preceding comment to yours has me citing you:

↪boethius You made a claim. I've challenged it. You are not answering hte challenge. So be it.
— AmadeusD — boethius

And yet you accuse me of not citing your words and misrepresenting your position ... which is not even the argument you're making in going on to say:

and you've provided absolutely nothing to move that needle. You cannot name a single 'suffering' i endure by you receiving my personal information. You are getting extremely agitated by having to answer a simple question directly related to your contention. — AmadeusD

Which clearly recognizes I haven't misrepresented your position, you just claim my explaining (multiple times) that invasion of privacy is illegal hasn't answered your question. And why is it illegal? Because it causes suffering.

Again, for you personally maybe you are radically transparent and really wouldn't suffer by demonstrating it is "nothing" to you that I have your information by simply sending it to me. Now, while that would satisfy me it really is nothing to you personally, invasion of privacy would remain illegal due to the very act of invading someone's privacy causing suffering of a feeling of violation, lack of safety, and worry of further harms enabled by the invasion of privacy (once they find out about it of course; privacy invaders, cluster B folks, would of course say that the goal is the subject of their enquiry never finds out about it and therefore it is a victimless crime and they've done nothing wrong and shouldn't be held accountable even if their victim does find out, because it's someone else's fault that the victim found out and therefore that person caused the suffering).

This is why you are not worth engaging with. You are being dishonest, uninteresting and avoiding the challenge entirely. These are facts. — AmadeusD

This is like the fifth time you've made your stylish exit.

And once more, every accusation is a confession.

What do I suffer when you receive my personal information??? Stop fing around, and answer this question.

You haven't. You haven't tried. You've said other, not relevant things. This isn't my problem. I am now giving you something like the sixth opportunity to tell me what I suffer in that scenario. You are yet to tell me. Go ahead... Tell me, what I will experience as a result of only those facts?? Don't add any. Don't make anything up. Just answer the fucking question.

What do I suffer when you receive my personal information??? Stop fing around, and answer this question. — AmadeusD

I'll be checking in every few days to just point out that I have obviously answered this question multiple time, and you have yet to demonstrate you are not lying when you say you would suffer nothing if I had all your information.

If you would suffer nothing, if it was "nothing" to you, as you claim, then you'd just do it to show that.

If I said it was nothing to me to do something, then I'd just do it to demonstrate that fact.

You don't send me your personal information to demonstrate you suffer nothing if I have all your personal information, because you are lying to me.

You also just completely ignore the obvious fact that invasion of privacy is a crime, vis-a-vis your actual claim that it's not only nothing that I have your personal information but nothing to you if I steal if from you and also the matter at hand in that the child welfare group of corporations described in the the OP are compromising children's information integrity illegally (in violation of the GDPR).

As the reason it's illegal, and why there are now 2 investigations into these events that I know of, is because invasions of privacy, or comprising privacy due to malice, error or neglect, causes severe suffering. If it didn't, there wouldn't be laws about it, and certainly not offences and crimes.

Also, for those wondering: illegal, violation, offences, crimes, wrongdoing, are all technical legal terms and jargon to refer to different kinds of laws and non-legal actions.

"Wrongdoing" is a catch all for reproachable actions, leaving it undefined what kind of wrongdoing we are talking about: contractual breach, violation, offence, crime, being the main legal categories.

Specifically, wrongdoing is legal jargon referring to something one is saying violates the law in someway (i.e. a judge will rule in your favour) and is also immoral. Non-legal things that one does not wish to imply are also immoral, the jargon of "non-compliance" or "deficiency" would be used instead. "Serious contractual deficiencies" would be typical language to describe that you aren't happy about what's been done or delivered under a contract but are not saying it was done intentionally.

However, in terms of what the government does in terms of law enforcement by itself, a violation is not a crime but may give rise to orders to do things differently and / or a fine, whereas an offence is a crime.

For example, in Finland to stay in the context of the OP, the Companies Act ends with a small list of offences and violations. The whole act is rules that are supposed to be followed, but if would be up to a wronged party to seek redress in civil litigation or arbitration with respect to those rules, but the government does care about a few things in terms of law enforcement: such as not changing or misrepresenting auditing reports for example, especially in the context of a merger, which is an offence as you may imagine. A violation (i.e. will be ordered to fix and / or fined over) would be things like negligent paperwork of one kind or another.

So, in any legal dispute or government action, these word choices are important and refer to different categories of potential consequences.

For our purposes here, compromising someone's information is wrongdoing; if important enough information then if it is intentional it is by definition criminal invasion of privacy, if it's unintentional then it could be anywhere on the spectrum of non-liable accident, non-compliance, violation, to criminal negligence.

@Benkei's an actual lawyer who could certainly explain things better if he wanted to.

However, one important difference between board member's and regular people is that board members are held to a higher standard. Although "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an oft repeated adage, it is actually totally a good excuse if you could not reasonably have known about the law; however, board members of a corporation are required by law to either have or then seek out expertise they lack in making decisions, why it is not plausible for board members in an advanced Western economy such as Finland to just completely ignore questions of data integrity and liability, as there's a super long list of violations and offences that go along with being careless with people's critical information and "oh, I didn't know" is a legal defence explicitly denied to corporate board members.

This back and forth would benefit from outside adjudicators as to the claims leveled against one another rather than you two just slugging it out which is just ending up in the same claims being volleyed from one side to the other again and again.

I would agree @boethius that it is glaringly obvious you have answered the questions many times so find it bizarre it is claimed you haven't. Of course I could be accused of being biased, so it could do with some fresh impartial, as agreed to the both of you, eyes. :)

This back and forth would benefit from outside adjudicators as to the claims leveled against one another rather than you two just slugging it out which is just ending up in the same claims being volleyed from one side to the other again and again. — unimportant

This is often the case.

It would of course be nice to have philosophical arbiters that could "make a ruling", but that just begs the question of how these arbiters know what the truth is.

In this case, @AmadeusD goes in circles so as to tire me out, then he can have the last word. However, I don't really mind because I'm unemployed at the moment so have plenty of time. It's also my overarching philosophical project on the forum to develop methods to deal with bad faith discourse (as that is one of the major political ills we are dealing with today).

I would agree boethius that it is glaringly obvious you have answered the questions many times so find it bizarre it is claimed you haven't. — unimportant

It is indeed glaringly obvious. Resorting to just repeated denials to frustrate the other side is not unusual, but what I find bizarre in this case is that it is to defend the interests of child traffickers by arguing stealing child protection data is not harmful.

I appreciate you attempting something of hte kind. Unfortunately, they factually, objectively have not answered this. They have claimed I said something I didn't., and responded to that. Then hid the ball on another issue. I'll explain.

I have asked specifically, in the scenario I gave (with no further elements involved), what I suffer by him receiving my information. This hasn't been answered. What happened was boethius then did two things:

1. Lied and said I claimed it "was nothing" that they have my information. I clearly, objectively did not say this. To claim I did is a literal lie. This is, i'm afraid, not debatable. The words are there to be read, and i did not say the ones he claims i did. q.e.d.;

2. Snuck in the "and you know about it" element. This is, quite obviously, what I had been pushing toward as a flaw in his initial statement. It took about six exchanges, and him sneaking that factor in, as if it were present in the initial claim, to get us anywhere. So, I pulled him back to my initial scenario. Since then he's been extremely immature and unbecoming for a philosophy forum. q.e.d.

My question has not be answered, unless the claim is that I am supposed to do some boat-building and figure out some esoteric position from statements that clearly do not answer the question, despite my attempting to bring it back several times.

Answering my question qith a question, I also note, is absolutely ridiculous, given how easy it would have been to answer.

To be even fucking clearer here are some responses that would have made sense:

"You are psychologically harmed because you feel your privacy has been invaded"

Ok. And this required the element snuck in later in the exchange: I know about it.

Why don't you answer the question, directly, so boethius has an example of the same:

In a scenario (without you adding any further facts) where you have received my personal email information, what do I suffer?

Please do not:

Claim i've said something I haven't.
Answer with a question
Pretend you've already answered it.

If you would suffer nothing, if it was "nothing" to you, as you claim, then you'd just do it to show that. — boethius

You are lying, as I have clearly explained above. I don't need you to agree with me. The facts sit in this thread. I already conditioned out that I know about it - yet you continue to lie, lie, lie.