Define Right To Privacy...

[JEDIYoda]

I keep hearing people say that WE have a right to privacy.
Do we really?
If so...
Where in the Constitution does is state thus?
Where in the Bill of Rights does it state thus?
Where in the Declaration of Independance does it state thus?

http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/countries/unitedstates.htm


"There is no explicit right to privacy in the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a limited constitutional right of privacy based on several provisions in the Bill of Rights. This includes a right to privacy from government surveillance into an area where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy"[2809] and also in matters relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing and education.[2810] Some states within the country have incorporated explicit privacy protections into their state constitutions.[2811]"

*******************************************************

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

"Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?

Well, I searched my copy of the Constitution of the United States and I couldn't find the word privacy anywhere in the document. Does this mean the Senator is right?

I also searched the Constitution and I couldn't find the word marriage either. Does that mean I don't have a right to be married ? that a so-called "right to marriage" was invented by some bleeding-heart liberal judge somewhere?

The Constitution also doesn't include the right to buy products from foreigners, or to have children, or to read a book, or even to eat food to survive.

How could the Constitution have overlooked such basic human rights?

Because the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do.

The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution."

*************************************************
http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-83512

This article is way to long...thus my own take on the article is that the Supreme Court says that there is an implied right to privacy based on several provisions to the Constitution...

Okay I am finished......tear me apart.....go for it......
Im like Bill Clinton...what did they call him?
The teflon Man...lolol

Just a quick note...I truly have no opinion one way or the other....
I was born in Poland back in the 50`s thus what this Government is doing pales in comparison to what was happenning in Communist Europe at the time...

 

[Meuge]

Well, actually it's high time we have a Privacy Amendment added to the Constitution. I'm in for $500, who's with me? Heck - if we get 10 million people to donate $500, we might be able to buy this amendment from Congress!

Figure, 1/3 to senate, 2/3 to house... that's:
$5 billion total
- 7.7 million / representative
- 16.7 million / senator

We can do it!

 

[1prophet]

Amendment IV

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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the government can come and search or sieze you, your house, your papers ( documents today electronic or paper), effects without cause or a warrant are those things private or public?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Amendment IV

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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the government can come and search or sieze you, your house, your papers ( documents today electronic or paper), effects without cause or a warrant are those things private or public?

So where does it say anything about privacy???
You can still be secure in your home even if somebody is watching you or spying on you....
You did not answer the question....

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Amendment IV

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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the government can come and search or sieze you, your house, your papers ( documents today electronic or paper), effects without cause or a warrant are those things private or public?

So where does it say anything about privacy???
You can still be secure in your home even if somebody is watching you or spying on you....
You did not answer the question....

Is not watching or spying a form of searching?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Amendment IV

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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the government can come and search or sieze you, your house, your papers ( documents today electronic or paper), effects without cause or a warrant are those things private or public?

So where does it say anything about privacy???
You can still be secure in your home even if somebody is watching you or spying on you....
You did not answer the question....

If someone could see into your home, I'd think that would qualify as "Search". Don't let the common phrase "Right to Privacy" confuse you. It's not meant to be a quote from any of those documents, it is a summation of a Principle derived from those documents.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
So where does it say anything about privacy???
You can still be secure in your home even if somebody is watching you or spying on you....
You did not answer the question....

Is not watching or spying a form of searching?[/quote]

I would think so.

 

[Screech]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Amendment IV

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 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the government can come and search or sieze you, your house, your papers ( documents today electronic or paper), effects without cause or a warrant are those things private or public?

So where does it say anything about privacy???
You can still be secure in your home even if somebody is watching you or spying on you....
You did not answer the question....

It doesn't say 'secure in your home even if being spied upon,' but rather 'secure AGAINST being searched' etc.... This means the govt cannot make unreasonable searches through your 'persons, houses, papers, and effects' without a warrant.

 

[JEDIYoda]

sorry....again...now it boisl down to this explanation..

"If someone could see into your home, I'd think that would qualify as "Search". Don't let the common phrase "Right to Privacy" confuse you. It's not meant to be a quote from any of those documents, it is a summation of a Principle derived from those documents. "


I know what your saying but that just is not the case. If you leave your blinds open and people can see into your house they are NOT searching your house...are they?

I can understand about telephone conversations there is a reasonable expectation of privacy but....then again.....

You see we have the 3 branches of Goverment.....yet it seems that all 3 branches can and do at times act independantly of each other with little or no checks and balances.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
sorry....again...now it boisl down to this explanation..

"If someone could see into your home, I'd think that would qualify as "Search". Don't let the common phrase "Right to Privacy" confuse you. It's not meant to be a quote from any of those documents, it is a summation of a Principle derived from those documents. "


I know what your saying but that just is not the case. If you leave your blinds open and people can see into your house they are NOT searching your house...are they?

I can understand about telephone conversations there is a reasonable expectation of privacy but....then again.....

You see we have the 3 branches of Goverment.....yet it seems that all 3 branches can and do at times act independantly of each other with little or no checks and balances.

Of course not, but if the government has a camera pointing into your home that's certainly not the same as people walking by and seeing through your window.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
sorry....again...now it boisl down to this explanation..

"If someone could see into your home, I'd think that would qualify as "Search". Don't let the common phrase "Right to Privacy" confuse you. It's not meant to be a quote from any of those documents, it is a summation of a Principle derived from those documents. "


I know what your saying but that just is not the case. If you leave your blinds open and people can see into your house they are NOT searching your house...are they?

I can understand about telephone conversations there is a reasonable expectation of privacy but....then again.....

You see we have the 3 branches of Goverment.....yet it seems that all 3 branches can and do at times act independantly of each other with little or no checks and balances.

Do you agree to the definition of search as defined below?

search (srch)
v. searched, searching, searches
v.tr.
1. To make a thorough examination of; look over carefully in order to find something; explore.
2. To make a careful examination or investigation of; probe: search one's conscience for the right solution to the problem.
3. Law To make a thorough check of (a legal document); scrutinize: search a title.
4.
a. To examine in order to find something lost or concealed.
b. To examine the person or personal effects of in order to find something lost or concealed.
5. To come to know; learn.
v.intr.
To conduct a thorough investigation; seek: were searching for clues.
n.
1. An act of searching.
2. Law The exercise of right of search.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
sorry....again...now it boisl down to this explanation..

"If someone could see into your home, I'd think that would qualify as "Search". Don't let the common phrase "Right to Privacy" confuse you. It's not meant to be a quote from any of those documents, it is a summation of a Principle derived from those documents. "


I know what your saying but that just is not the case. If you leave your blinds open and people can see into your house they are NOT searching your house...are they?

If you close your blinds and they try to open them, they are...

That is what the government would be doing by monitoring a telephone conversation. The persons on both sides of the phone expect it to be private, so violating that would breach the 4th amendment.

It's called "reasonable expectation".

I can understand about telephone conversations there is a reasonable expectation of privacy but....then again.....

Yes, exactly. There is no then again, or if there is, state it.

You see we have the 3 branches of Goverment.....yet it seems that all 3 branches can and do at times act independantly of each other with little or no checks and balances.

This statement has no relation to any of your previous ones, so I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Seems sad we are arguing the semantics of the meaning of the word privacy while the Republic rots from the inside out.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Seems sad we are arguing the semantics of the meaning of the word privacy while the Republic rots from the inside out.

Forget the last part, this is just arguing the semantics. Before we can define what a right to privacy might mean, we have to define what we mean by "privacy" in this debate. A lot of people view privacy, in the government context, as the government not being allowed to spy on you without some sort of process. This is certainly enumerated in the law, recent events to the contrary. As for anything else, I think the first point is to define what we are dealing with...just what do we mean by "privacy"?

Or forget that, argue the specific things we mean by privacy. Arguing for or against privacy is very broad, but arguing about warrentless searches is much easier.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, actually it's high time we have a Privacy Amendment added to the Constitution. I'm in for $500, who's with me? Heck - if we get 10 million people to donate $500, we might be able to buy this amendment from Congress!

Figure, 1/3 to senate, 2/3 to house... that's:
$5 billion total
- 7.7 million / representative
- 16.7 million / senator

We can do it!

Does that mean we get to eliminate the IRS and income reporting?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Or forget that, argue the specific things we mean by privacy. Arguing for or against privacy is very broad, but arguing about warrentless searches is much easier.

We all know what the word privacy means and I think most of us understand it's application in this context. Reducing a gravely serious issue to tedious arguments of semantics is a rather simplistic diversionary tactic. While not as embarrassing and ludicrous as Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" it's nonetheless trite and a waste of time.
This is what happens when you can no longer argue against the facts.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, actually it's high time we have a Privacy Amendment added to the Constitution. I'm in for $500, who's with me? Heck - if we get 10 million people to donate $500, we might be able to buy this amendment from Congress!

Figure, 1/3 to senate, 2/3 to house... that's:
$5 billion total
- 7.7 million / representative
- 16.7 million / senator

We can do it!

Does that mean we get to eliminate the IRS and income reporting?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, actually it's high time we have a Privacy Amendment added to the Constitution. I'm in for $500, who's with me? Heck - if we get 10 million people to donate $500, we might be able to buy this amendment from Congress!

Figure, 1/3 to senate, 2/3 to house... that's:
$5 billion total
- 7.7 million / representative
- 16.7 million / senator

We can do it!

Does that mean we get to eliminate the IRS and income reporting?

What does that have to do with anything?

Hmm, income reporting, privacy...

...could they possibly be related?

 

[Zebo]

the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches. Listening to your telephone convos, sneek and peeks etc by executive w/o any probable cause are all a form of searching - invading your privacy, constitutional rights and separation of powers. That the word "privacy" isnt explicitly layed out for you just shows you have zero powers of deduction and can't understand simple concepts.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hmm, income reporting, privacy...

...could they possibly be related?

Well, since income reporting is unquestionably essential to the functioning of the government, I'm be willing to let that one go.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Or forget that, argue the specific things we mean by privacy. Arguing for or against privacy is very broad, but arguing about warrentless searches is much easier.

We all know what the word privacy means and I think most of us understand it's application in this context. Reducing a gravely serious issue to tedious arguments of semantics is a rather simplistic diversionary tactic. While not as embarrassing and ludicrous as Clinton's "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" it's nonetheless trite and a waste of time.
This is what happens when you can no longer argue against the facts.

I think you misunderstood me...the arguments FOR privacy protections almost always do what I mentioned, discuss specific issues. In other words, I don't just argue for "privacy", I argue against warrentless searches. I DO support privacy, but with specific issues as part of a broader whole. The reason for this is that most arguments AGAINST privacy protections seem to come from the opposite direction, they argue that a very broad definition of privacy isn't specifically mentioned in our laws, so any specific issue that could be labeled as a privacy issue has no legal standing.

Like you said, most of us understand what privacy means and how it applies in this context. If you support requiring warrents for searches, you support privacy. The reason I frame the argument like this is that it rids us of silly arguments like "there is no right to privacy spelled out in the constitution, so the FBI can read all your email without a warrent." Incorrect conclusion, but if we make privacy specific, we get rid of that kind of sillyness right off the bat.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hmm, income reporting, privacy...

...could they possibly be related?

Well, since income reporting is unquestionably essential to the functioning of the government, I'm be willing to let that one go.

It is? How did they manage for the first 150 years.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think you misunderstood me...the arguments FOR privacy protections almost always do what I mentioned, discuss specific issues. In other words, I don't just argue for "privacy", I argue against warrentless searches. I DO support privacy, but with specific issues as part of a broader whole. The reason for this is that most arguments AGAINST privacy protections seem to come from the opposite direction, they argue that a very broad definition of privacy isn't specifically mentioned in our laws, so any specific issue that could be labeled as a privacy issue has no legal standing.

Like you said, most of us understand what privacy means and how it applies in this context. If you support requiring warrents for searches, you support privacy. The reason I frame the argument like this is that it rids us of silly arguments like "there is no right to privacy spelled out in the constitution, so the FBI can read all your email without a warrent." Incorrect conclusion, but if we make privacy specific, we get rid of that kind of sillyness right off the bat.

Fair enough mate. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hmm, income reporting, privacy...

...could they possibly be related?

Well, since income reporting is unquestionably essential to the functioning of the government, I'm be willing to let that one go.

Ahhh, I see. So having the government track what books you have checked out at the library is a big deal, but having to report all of your transactions to the IRS at the drop of the hat is no biggie. We have to let that one go because it is 'essential' to the functioning of the government.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hmm, income reporting, privacy...

...could they possibly be related?

Well, since income reporting is unquestionably essential to the functioning of the government, I'm be willing to let that one go.

Ahhh, I see. So having the government track what books you have checked out at the library is a big deal, but having to report all of your transactions to the IRS at the drop of the hat is no biggie. We have to let that one go because it is 'essential' to the functioning of the government.

Yeah essential to fund the invasion of your other privacies don't you know.