You can worry all about the 2nd amendment, but the 4th amendment protects your 2nd amendment. It's sad that the government has allowed massive expansion of "probable cause" and now has even set up a system outside of our traditional court system so that they can escape the requirements. This problem and its application to the American internet user in general will get worse as time goes on. When will people care enough to notice and react?
The flippant and ease in which people invade other people's privacy is most troubling. People invade your privacy . . . then get offended if you offended or upset "It's only a picture. . . . " "If you not doing anything wrong . . . you wouldn't mind . . . " Why do I have to be doing something wrong . . . if i want privacy? This mentality KILLS me. Rocket River
I'm all for this. What is privacy? Why is it necessary in a liberal nation? Maybe in muslim nations where incest and child molestation are rife, but I thought we held ourselves to a higher standard? If we can expand our mental capacity and build understanding, then the concept of privacy becomes obsolete - it arises solely due to a fear of judgment and mommy issues. As an exhibitionist, I often keep my penthouse flat fully lit with the windows up before a 2 hour session with one of the many limber, beautiful women that grace my presence. There's no need to hide my acrobatic lifestyle from the world and I welcome their judgment. It is only through all encompassing knowledge can we break down the walls of judgment and fear of the unknown. We're all humans. Accept that, and this won't be such a big deal.
It is in the constitution, brah. The government isn't allowed to search or seize a person's belongings without a warrant from a judge. You know, that whole 4th amendment thing?....
That's nice. Now please post your full name and address as well as bank account, credit card, and social security numbers. No need for privacy, right?
This is Obama's biggest failing. Unfortunately the Republican side isn't going to scale back erosions of civil liberties. We are pretty much well on the way of accepting Huxley's (not Orwell) world where we give up privacy and personal liberty are sacrificed out of paranoia and just plain convenience. Honey Bear is an act but this post pretty much nails it about why privacy isn't the issue it once was.
It's the disgusting social doublespeak of the whole thing. The way it's sold to the next generation isn't as blatant as "invasion of privacy" but rather then enhanced concept of "share". We're not having our privacy invaded, but we're voluntarily "sharing" everything. The problem is, in order to "share" everything, we are forced to give up certain personal information. Names, credit cards, bank accounts, addresses, phone #s. All passing hands from one corporate entity to another. All in the name of access to the "share" universe that the internet has become. The speed at which people pull out their cellphones to capture someone else's misfortune is appalling. Everyone's searching for the next youtube moment. Why can't I have what's the most fundamental thing of all? The thing which allowed women to govern their choice in abortion rights? The thing that allowed contraception issues to be decided between man-woman in the "privacy" of a bedroom setting? The "private" right to believe/disbelieve in a monotheistic God? The issue stretches way beyond a simple dismissive "if you're not doing anything wrong" approach.
I think the concept of "judgment" is a necessary concept in a society that demands justice. Accepting the fact that "humans will be humans" leaves open the possibility of humans behaving more in line with their animal nature rather than those with expanded mental capacity. In the Supreme Court decision of Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, Scalia was upset about a the court striking down a Texas law that made it a crime to engage in private homosexual conduct behind closed doors. It was his belief that it's up to the legislature to decide what conduct is a crime, and if the basis for the state's decision is its moral judgment, all the better. He observed, that throughout time, morality has been the basis for criminal laws against polygamy, adultery, incest, bestiality and obscenity. Without the use of the tools of judgment and morality, in a society where privacy is null and void and "understanding" and "acceptance" are held paramount, we risk losing the very foundation of the basic evils we regard as crimes in society. Every murder gains infinite potentials for justification, every crime finds a theoretical defense in "understanding" the criminals POV. Privacy and the need for it to safeguard a sense of morality and shame go hand in hand. Without privacy, an open society with no fear of judgment risks falling down a slippery slope. Sure we may all agree that murder is still bad, but at a time in the past, adultery was just as bad but now isn't. Obscenity was just as bad, but now isn't. The slope we continue to slide down has no reasonable end in sight if we allow ourselves to continue on this path.
Yeah, this is what sucks most about the Obama administration. Some of the issues that I consider the most important were not going to be addressed by either party ... but this one, you'd think, would be something Obama would counteract. Really, in this respect, he's just continuing the process started by the Bush Admin.
Technically a plain-text reading of the Constitution contains no enumerated general right to privacy. kinda one reason why "plain-text" readings and mentally imagining what a founder thought is dangerous territory.
