Privacy for What?

Ok. I am a liberal; but I think I might go against my liberal tendencies to proclaim a certain lack of sympathy for those who demand privacy, if that privacy provides a screen to do evil. It is a matter of pragmatism over idealism.
An example of idealism to the extreme is detailed in the article on page 2A of The Kitsap Sun entitled “Bainbridge officer resigns ahead of being fired.” According to the article the officer secretly recorded the dialog in a meeting so she could “accurately type notes after the meeting.” I have to ask, “What’s the problem?” The state law governing recording a conversation without the speakers’ knowledge is a crime. If the intent of the recording is to entrap the unsuspecting I can see some need. But, if entrapment is not the goal then just what are we perpetuating by the necessary saving a record of the conversation? To me the rigid enforcement of this law can result in the speakers’ having carte blanche to lie with impunity. Could misspoken statements be recorded? Of course they can. But it might be incumbent on participants in important meetings to weigh carefully what they say and check their propensity to mislead as they speak.
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse”, it is said; but at what point do we get so focused on the letter of the law that we lose sight of the spirit? The outcome of this misstep would, it seems to me, bring a punishment way out of line in enforcing “law and order”. I would say that the officer’s attempt to ameliorate the bad effects of her action should completely absolve her of crime. The threat to fire her is pandering to legal absolutism. It also shows a definite lack of good sense to discriminate between really bad conduct by a police officer and that which has no evil intent and would be completely erased by subsequent actions.
“Brain-dead Island” is an often spoken phrase to demean those who inhabit this enclave of elitism. This is an example of brain-dead actions.