4
4
0
Privacy and protecting information took on new meaning with the creation of the internet. Rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not meet the requirements for protection in today's society. Laws are being created to protect the individual and to grant government the right to monitor and view details of our personal lives, both are important. Is it possible to balance both?
Constitution
Rights
Society
Law
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 13
If privacy is a privilege, then it means you are born without privacy and that somebody has to give it to you. I do not believe that. I believe we are born as free human beings and that we don't need permission from anyone to expect privacy. It is therefore a human right... unless of course you do something which causes you to lose that right.
(9)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
Semantics more than anything else but I have to disagree slightly with the last part of your statement. You never LOSE the Natural Right to Privacy but by your actions, you can give the government justification to violate it.
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
1LT Aaron Barr - If somebody rapes and murders a bunch of people and is placed in prison because of it, they certainly lose some if not all of their privacy. However, I would not say the government is violating privacy in this case.
(0)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
I guess it depends on how you look at it. From the point of view of Natural Rights, which the Founders called 'inalienable', the Natural Right to Privacy is being violated, along with other Natural Rights such as Liberty, Property, Association etc. The fact that things like imprisonment do constitute a violation of Natural Rights is why the Founders placed such elaborate protections for people accused of crimes in the Constitution. It's also reflected in the fact that the burden of proof is on the government to prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty. Since government is violating the Natural Rights of those it fines, imprisons or executes, it is up to the government to justify this via proof of guilt.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I don't see "privacy" as a right or a privilege and I do believe that the Constitution addresses it quite well. To answer the issue, one must first state the question correctly. Asking "Is Privacy a right or a privilege" puts the burden of proof on those who are attempting to protect their privacy. The question we should be asking is "By what right does the government intrude on our privacy?" Think about that for a moment. Imagine the drones and minions dusting off a copy of the Constitution and looking in vain for any wording that gives them the right to invade our privacy. Let me know if you find anything? If not, stay the hell out of my private life...
(5)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
I think they explicitly outline it in the 3a & 4a. They don't use the word "Privacy" but the gist is pretty clear.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
The problem with looking for a prohibition is that it may be interpreted unwisely. I prefer to think of the Constitution as a charter whereby We the People cede certain rights and responsibilities to the government and explicitly retain all others to ourselves. To avail yourself of the protections of the 3rd or 4th Amendments, you must first be violated. However, looking at it from my point of view, the government cannot act without first showing that it has the right. Inasmuch as they'll have a hard time finding anything in the Constitution that gives them the right to violate the privacy of citizens, we should be very secure. If they invade our privacy without a Constitutional mandate, they should be found guilty of criminal trespass and subject to criminal justice or impeachment depending upon their position in the government.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Privacy is a Right.
The question is whether it is a PROTECTED Right.
Now, because of various "case law" Privacy has become an Implied Protection under the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly"
However when dealing with this, we must separate what is Private and what is Public.
Simply put, anything you do not place in Public is Private. If you do not release that "information" (et al) then it is Private information. However, when you hand it to a "third party" (like a phone company) to hand it to someone else... the courts have rules that the "expectation to Privacy" disappears. You have placed it in Public.
The flaw in this logic is when you (the Citizen), intentionally SAFEGUARDS said information even during said transaction so that it cannot be read, as in "encryption." You have a reasonable belief that information will remain Private. Likewise if you place that information in a "repository" like a Safe Deposit box, it is considered Private, but what about a "Virtual Drop Box?"
The Government is arguing that once it leaves a Person's hands, the expectation goes away, even when the Citizenry is taking steps to actively prevent the Government to gain access to it.
Do these issues "trigger" the Protections of the 4th Amendment?
That is a very simple example. We it gets far more complex, if you look at all the data we MUST provide to operate inside society at this time, which is classified as "third party" which we "should" have a reasonable expectation to Privacy with.
This is completely outside the scope of those items which we freely distribute.
The question is whether it is a PROTECTED Right.
Now, because of various "case law" Privacy has become an Implied Protection under the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly"
However when dealing with this, we must separate what is Private and what is Public.
Simply put, anything you do not place in Public is Private. If you do not release that "information" (et al) then it is Private information. However, when you hand it to a "third party" (like a phone company) to hand it to someone else... the courts have rules that the "expectation to Privacy" disappears. You have placed it in Public.
The flaw in this logic is when you (the Citizen), intentionally SAFEGUARDS said information even during said transaction so that it cannot be read, as in "encryption." You have a reasonable belief that information will remain Private. Likewise if you place that information in a "repository" like a Safe Deposit box, it is considered Private, but what about a "Virtual Drop Box?"
The Government is arguing that once it leaves a Person's hands, the expectation goes away, even when the Citizenry is taking steps to actively prevent the Government to gain access to it.
Do these issues "trigger" the Protections of the 4th Amendment?
That is a very simple example. We it gets far more complex, if you look at all the data we MUST provide to operate inside society at this time, which is classified as "third party" which we "should" have a reasonable expectation to Privacy with.
This is completely outside the scope of those items which we freely distribute.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google