>>>OK, you want honesty here. I feel that I sometimes have an over-developed sense of integrity and honesty. Security training will do that to you. Having your own privacy invaded will too (both I have experienced).
>>
>>Well, at least you are aware of it. Most others here who reacted to my challenge also appear to have an over-developed sense of it, but in a somewhat different direction. They react like little children and have not really grown up yet. You know how little children think about right and wrong, don't you? Something is right or it is wrong, no matter the context. From programmers (who use IF all the time) I had expected more appreciation of the context.
>>
>>>The only place I step over that line is when it comes to the safety of my daughter. I use tools to ensure that she is not communicating with a pediphile online. That could be seen as an invasion of her privacy (Mike B sees it that way), but I see it as my responsibility as a parent in today's world. I do not read her diary. I give her the freedom to go online where she wishes, but I monitor it. Until she makes a bad decision she is allowed to make her own decisions. To be fair, there will be some decisions she may regret, but she will hopefully learn (but not get hurt) by her mistakes. I am more concerned with her safety though when it comes to monitoring her online usage. I would never consider doing even that with anyone else. Not even another family member. Parental responsibility is the only thing which allows me to do even that.
>>
>>I've never monitored my own children in that way, but I think your monitoring shows more integrity than I showed, because the reason I did not monitor them is because I kind of ignored the possible threat.
>>
>>>Having written that, I would never consider invading someone else's privacy intentionally unless my daughter's life was on the line. If that were the case, there is no line I would not cross.
>>
>>So, your daughter is the only case? I assume that, at this moment, you can think of no other cases. But I assure you that there are plenty other cases that will let you cross that line.
>>
>>Would admitting that make you unfit for your current job? I'd say, on the contrary. It would demonstrate that you have insight in other people and in yourself.
>
>
>What a load of nonsense. This whole thread was about integrity. Integrity will not allow me to open someone else's mail. If you're going to change the context just to win an argument then go ahead, but this was never about protecting family members from death or great harm. This was about reading somebody else's mail when they weren't around just to snoop. You can make up all the silly contexts you like, but the real question is, "Would you open someone else's mail just because they aren't there to stop you?". The answer should, if one has any integrity at all, be no.

That was not the question I raised. The phrase 'just because' is crucial here. If somebody does it 'just because' the opportunity is there, then it's most certainly not a trustworthy person. But there are plenty of situations that even normally trustworthy persons will do it anyway. As opposed to the clearly untrustworthy people, 'trustworthy' people will have ambivalent feelings prior to crossing the line, but will cross it anyway because they feel other norms and values will justify the action afterall. And we should also not forget that distress, anxiety, feeling haunted and other negative emotions have a temporary impact on our norms and values.

In the case of Naomi, all who are of opinion that she did it 'just because' there was an opportunity show no appreciation or knowledge of the situation and state of mind that she beforehand had ended up in. I'm not implicitly completely excusing her here (she wouldn't even overtly appreciate that), but I want people to at least consider the context when judging.

>If you want to get silly and ask, if reading somebody's mail would save my mother from being shot to death, would I do it? Then of course, but that was never the point, and all you did was introduce this nonsense to try to win a point. If you want to continue this, then get back to the real issue which was never a question of life and death, but just a question of snooping.
>
>Integrity is not compromised by saving somebody's life. It's a non-starter, so ok, you win.