Attorney client privilege is unimportant

Crimes in the past would have a significant affect on the citizens identity, and personal history, and can even solve mystery’s. So yes it is very important.
And like you said, lawyers telling confidential info to paparazzis or even normal citizens especially if it’s a big case, could lead into a huge controversy. So yes that it’s important as well. If you think about it both are important. Depending on what type you think it is,

Well, some might argue 'certain types of Attorney Client Privilege ought not matter,

Speaking about Confidential Client information on pop TV
VS
Telling the police that your client confidentially admitted to a crime, that is not currently or future occurring.

Some people might agree Attorney Client Privilege is important to prevent a lawyer from blabbing confidential info to paparazzi,
But might think Attorney Client Privilege no longer matters if their client committed a crime in the past.

Yeah sure. It basically means that the rule of attorney client privilege does t really need to exist due to pros arguments

Can you define, or give context to, the term “unimportant”? As Pro, would it be an argument along the lines that it is “unimportant” and does not disrupt the administration of justice? Or, alternatively, would Pro’s argument be that attorney client privilege is unimportant because it doesn’t impact the trial process so it shouldn’t be a concept/established protection?