People don't think the invasion of their privacy will 1. save lives, and 2. not take lives.

Faith in governments is not only low, people are pretty sure any power governments have will be abused.

The equation is a little bigger than that, basically.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

It's obviously a balance. But if you're asking if say 1,000 lost lives per year is worth it to save the privacy of 350 million people, I would say yes.

Just look at the 10's of thousands of people who die every year so that we have the convenience of driving cars. Not to mention the millions whose health are affected by the air pollution.

False dichotomy.

pov: a vatnik tries to understand western values

Your phrasing is weird. In this case, the two are not in conflict but rather symbiotic - this grand jury chose to preserve the life of the person who was being accused of protecting our privacy. There is also a good chance that privacy (evidentiary rules) helped preserve this person's life.

But also you're going to have to elaborate what you mean by life being considered the highest value. Have you seen how we treat one another? We're always looking for rationales as to why someone else's life should be considered unimportant.

"how many kids have to die before you..."

All of them.

This is such a bullshit "think of the children" kind of question. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If you state it in the form of an actual argument that sets up a meaningful comparison, you'll find that it falls apart completely.

Which makes me wonder, why would you ask such a question? None of the answers I can think of are flattering to you.