> The user has no right to privacy

The correct term for this is prima facie right.

You do have a right to privacy (arguably) but it is outweighed by the interest of enforcing the rights of others under copyright law.

Similarly, liberty is a prima facie right; you can be arrested for committing a crime.

> enforcing the rights of others under copyright law

I certainly do not care about copyright more than my own privacy, and I certainly don't find that interest to be the public's interest, though perhaps it's the interest of legacy corporations and their lobbyists.

> You do have a right to privacy (arguably) but it is outweighed by the interest of enforcing the rights of others under copyright law.

What governs or codifies that? I would have expected that there would need to be some kind of specific overriding concern(s) that would need to apply in order to violate my (even limited) expectation of privacy, not just enforcing copyright law in general.

E.g. there's nothing resembling "probable cause" to search my own interactions with ChatGPT for such violations. On what basis can that be justified?

Is there any evaluation of which right or which harm is larger? It seems like the idea that one outweighs another is arbitrary. Is there a principled thing behind it?