Remember, he mentioned the Constitution first, so I think a legal comparison was appropriate.

While you can object in court (Relevance), much of the evidence obtained via discovery winds up in public record,
while exact practices appear to vary by state, if all else fails you can get them via FOIA requests. The only things
I know of that are categorically redacted are privileged information, so attorney client privilege, spousal privilege and
the like. Also things change if it's criminal law.

The point was that in the enforcement of law, subject to the Constitution, it is really common for private
correspondence to cease to be private on some level, if not completely. So the constitutional comment doesn't
make sense to me. A better, and much less complex complaint might have been that: judges should not also act as
juries.

As for the second point: that would be very cruel. But you (and Murphy) have a different definition of betrayal from me.
In fact I would say your definition of betrayal doesn't actually have anything to do with the word unless you're presuming
that by both playing the game they've implicitly entered some kind of agreement to respect personal privacy boundaries
as if they were friends, AND that it is hierarchically inferior to rule enforcement.

And if somebody e-mails you, the staff, telling you that they're cheating and that their friends are cheating too, and here
is the proof, then things have already changed because the original party has broken an actual, explicit trust agreement
made previously (don't cheat).

What do you want them to do? Become a CF court? This is asinine to me. Reading the log is the default to me.