I don’t know about the US specifically, but oftentimes, and definitely where I’m from, laws can have a small amount of “common sense” leeway and judges can find justifications for rulings if they want to rule a particular way. e.g. I have pirated games that I legally bought because there’s literally no functioning “official” download link anymore, if anyone were to ever prosecute me for that, even if it were illegal technically a judge could find a way to rule it lawful out of sympathy or whatever other reason, if they wanted to. A lot of the time it’s “the government can’t have possibly intended this law to be enforced this way, therefore I rule XYZ”.

In any case, as you said, I’ve never heard of anyone being pursued for that. And if it’s not enforced, it’s not a law.

I represent myself in all my cases :)

Great news for defendants though. I hope at my next trial I look over at the prosecutor’s screen and they’re reading off ChatGPT lmao

Only if you use privacy as the opposite of public. “Privacy”, though, generally refers to counter/non-surveillance. It’s not surveillance to be able to access data that you explicitly publish publicly.