There's almost always better solutions than violence.
Not always. Violence has a *deterrent* effect, which is worth quite a bit. That's why it's used where it matters, by criminals and by governments and law enforcement.
To think that violence has no legitimate role in human society is naive.
Suppose every glasshole gets attacked on sight for wearing them, by vigilantes.That' would have a chilling effect and, ignoring the legality for a moment, would cause the glassholes to stop wearing them in public very quickly. Compare that with the expense and complication of sueing every glasshole on a different technicality, for every instance where they abuse their spying powers. It would clog the court systems, be impossible to do *systematically*, and would lead to a neverending battleground between the 'holes and regular people.
Now deterrence can also be approximated nonviolently - for example, the police could fine glassholes for wearing them in the street. That wouldn't stop people like Oracle's Larry Ellison or Google's Eric Schmidt from doing what they want, but it would deter a large number of people. And yet, ultimately, this still depents on the threat of violence, in this case the legitimate violence that the police are able to use in the pursuit of their duties.
The point is, human societies have a way of regulating the beheviour of individuals, and one of the tools that get used is violence. The world is what it is.