That is the issue. Rules are arbitray. Having privacy rights trump arbitrary rules is the danger in this ruling.
The real danger lies in the arbitrary rules trumping our rights. Our right to keep and bear arms is routinely trumped by BATF regulations, our right to property is routinely trumped by EPA administrative law, and etc. Arbitrary rules make up a government of men, not a government of laws.
They are necessarily arbitrary sometimes, but as I said, most of us accept that as the natural state and have no problem accepting that. Being arbitrary doesn't exactly create the slippery slope into a moral wasteland that all the doom and gloomsayers on this board predict.
The ridiculous reasoning offered here, and put forth in all seriousness, is asinine. It's more typical of leftists usually, but I guess some 'conservatives' have no problem adopting leftist rhetorical tactics when it suits them.
Since society's rules are arbitrary, what's to stop me from speeding at 100 miles an hour through a school zone? If an intoxicant like alcohol is legal, why not heroin? It's an arbitrary distinction. If I have the right to own a gun, why not a bazooka, why not a tank, why not a nuclear bomb? It's all arbitrary afterall.
We know you don't agree with the ruling, but don't be so daft.