There is no right to privacy

[Guy Incognito]

Or not

Property rights are not connected to "bodily sovereignty." Your having control over your own body has nothing to do with how property rights are construed in Western societies. My apartment is not a part of me, and I do not own it because I control my own body. Property rights are devised as a conceptual mean to control certain physical resources.

I do not "own" my email. In fact, if I use a commercial service like Gmail or Yahoo!, those companies actually own my email. My right to be protected from government supervision is not based on Yahoo's ownership of my emails, it's based on the idea that I, as a private citizen, have (limited) rights to privacy.

In fact, it's entirely conceivable to imagine having a right to privacy without a right to property. For example, you could live in a communal space such as a monastery, and still have an expectation of privacy.



You don't say



In some cases yes, in others no.

If the government has a warrant that specifies the data, then they have followed the law.

If the government hoovers up public data, they haven't violated your rights.

If the government records metadata on every single phone call made in the United States, that's very problematic.

If the government hooks up to the routers that carry most of the traffic on the Internet, and capture all your emails and Facebook posts and passwords, then we definitely have a problem.

On the contrary, property rights are derived from bodily sovereignty. Simply put, it is the right to self ownership which permits the right to one's labor. In turn, one mixes labor with natural resources to own property. The right to privacy does not exist. As somebody astutely observed above, privacy indirectly arises from property ownership. You can keep your property private if you want and if you can manage it. But it is not a right separate from the ownership of the property itself.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Well, I don't know what "undeattend" means but you are just butt hurt you were wrong about a legal point you asserted. Facts are trolling to some, but not to those who are honest.

Nonsense. You are trolling, giving me **** about a typo, as per your usual. The philosophy forum does not require that you put a disclaimer at the beginning of the thread stating it is about philosophy. What a stupid idea.So get out of this thread already. It's about what the law should be, not what it is.

 

[Fisher]

Nonsense. You are trolling, giving me **** about a typo, as per your usual. The philosophy forum does not require that you put a disclaimer at the beginning of the thread stating it is about philosophy. What a stupid idea.So get out of this thread already. It's about what the law should be, not what it is.

I was responding to Maggie and not addressing you at all. You just do not like that you were wrong about the application of the exclusionary rule and she was right. If anybody is trolling, it is you for interjecting yourself into my exchange with the charming Maggie D.

Why look, you at least are claiming that it is about what the law should be, though that was not part of your OP. The law should be exactly what it is, ergo I am justify in dissenting to whatever imagined arguments you have going on in your head.

 

[Guy Incognito]

how does government collect data? are they asking you for it, allowing you to refuse, or are they forcing it to be handed over?

I find your stance pretty ignorant of what is actually happening.

Well let's think about who is being ignorant. Who is the government forcing to turn over the data? You? No. It's forcing google or Verizon or whoever to turn over the data.

 

[Guy Incognito]

There is no right to property either.

No, the right to property is a necessary outcome of the right to ownership of one's own body and the fruits of one's own labor.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I'm no constitutional scholar, but if I'm not mistaken the Supreme Court has already ruled that there is indeed a right to personal privacy in it's decisions regarding abortion. In addition, the fourth amendment gives American citizens the right to privacy for everything else.

I'm not really interested in the supreme court's take on the matter. The fourth amendment protects from searches and seizures unless they are reasonable, which is morally sound, but not a protection of a right to privacy per se. If the government can't take or search your stuff, that is a protection of your property, not your privacy. At least not directly.

Think about it, what does it mean to have a right to privacy? What if somebody accidentally sees some of your secret information? If you had a right to privacy they wouldn't be allowed to reveal it.

 

[ARealConservative]

Well let's think about who is being ignorant. Who is the government forcing to turn over the data? You? No. It's forcing google or Verizon or whoever to turn over the data.

so the government is forcing people to hand over private data, much in the same way thieves collect property.

you ever getting to a point here?

 

[Guy Incognito]

so the government is forcing people to hand over private data, much in the same way thieves collect property.

you ever getting to a point here?

My point is a couple of things. And if you weren't so busy being rude you may have noticed I made these in the first post.

First of all, it is between those companiea and the government; it is not YOUR privacy, it is THEIR provacy.
Or more precisely, the government is infringing the property rights by coercing those companies to turn over data without a warrant. But no matter how you slice it, you are not in the picture.

Second of all they have a warrant.

 

[ARealConservative]

My point is a couple of things. And if you weren't so busy being rude you may have noticed I made these in the first post.

First of all, it is between those companiea and the government; it is not YOUR privacy, it is THEIR provacy.

You are making a generic blanket statement that is not always true.

In many cases, it is our data. Theirs and mine. We have agreements of what can and can’t be done with our data.

Or more precisely, the government is infringing the property rights by coercing those companies to turn over data without a warrant. But no matter how you slice it, you are not in the picture.

Second of all they have a warrant.

Yes, the star chamber provided them a warrant. I always wondered what kind of person defended the star chamber. Now I know.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You are making a generic blanket statement that is not always true.

In many cases, it is our data. Theirs and mine. We have agreements of what can and can’t be done with our data.

I have read the google contract, and it you agrees to it I know for a fact that you agreed that they may release your data to the government when they have a warrant.

Yes, the star chamber provided them a warrant. I always wondered what kind of person defended the star chamber. Now I know.

If you have something to say to me, be a man and say it.

 

[Visbek]

Simply put, it is the right to self ownership which permits the right to one's labor.

You do not "own yourself," the very concept does not make sense.

If I own an item, I have near-total control over its fate. I can take it apart; I can modify it; I can destroy it; I can trade it; I can rent it out.

I do not have the same set of rights over my own body. I cannot chop off my right hand arbitrarily; I cannot sell my organs; I do not necessarily have the right to commit suicide; I do not have the right to put cocaine into my body; I cannot rent out my body for sexual favors.

In addition, referring to one's body as a type of "property" gives a clear opening to chattel slavery, which is obviously not acceptable.

In turn, one mixes labor with natural resources to own property.

That's a bizzare theory, given how many different ways one can acquire property without actually exerting any labor. Even if we stick to legal forms, I can gather capital by speculation, investing in equity, gambling, inheritance, selling access to purchased content or patents, and everyone's favorite -- I can accumulate capital by exploiting the labor of other people. I don't even have to do anything, I can just own part (or all) of a company and collect the profits.

We are also a long way off from "mixing labor with natural resources." What "natural resources" are involved in a legal practice, a surgical procedure, a hedge fund's trades, a graphic designer's output?

The right to privacy does not exist. As somebody astutely observed above, privacy indirectly arises from property ownership.

Repetition is not an argument. Neither is -- well, the polite term is "self-congratulation."

It is not a right separate from the ownership of the property itself.

As I already mentioned, "property rights" and "privacy rights" are not necessarily linked.

A renter receives the exact same privacy rights as a property owner; the landord cannot arbitrarily enter the apartment at any time, nor can the police enter without a warrant, even if the landlord consents. The right to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure is conferred directly on the tenant, not the property owner.

As already stated, someone living in a communal environment has privacy rights, despite not personally owning their living space.

Your privacy rights are not terminated if you go into a hotel room, or a public bathroom, or make a call at a phone booth.

If I'm sitting on my front porch, and my neighbors have a clear and unimpeded line of sight to my porch, I have no claim to any privacy. I cannot walk around naked, even on my own property, if doing so results in public indecent exposure. If the cops walk past my house and see a bunch of pot plants in plain sight, they can bust me without needing a warrant.


And again: We do, in fact, have a recognized privacy right with things that we do not own, such as email, phone calls and other communications.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You do not "own yourself," the very concept does not make sense.

If I own an item, I have near-total control over its fate. I can take it apart; I can modify it; I can destroy it; I can trade it; I can rent it out.

I do not have the same set of rights over my own body. I cannot chop off my right hand arbitrarily; I cannot sell my organs; I do not necessarily have the right to commit suicide; I do not have the right to put cocaine into my body; I cannot rent out my body for sexual favors.

In addition, referring to one's body as a type of "property" gives a clear opening to chattel slavery, which is obviously not acceptable.



That's a bizzare theory, given how many different ways one can acquire property without actually exerting any labor. Even if we stick to legal forms, I can gather capital by speculation, investing in equity, gambling, inheritance, selling access to purchased content or patents, and everyone's favorite -- I can accumulate capital by exploiting the labor of other people. I don't even have to do anything, I can just own part (or all) of a company and collect the profits.

We are also a long way off from "mixing labor with natural resources." What "natural resources" are involved in a legal practice, a surgical procedure, a hedge fund's trades, a graphic designer's output?



Repetition is not an argument. Neither is -- well, the polite term is "self-congratulation."



As I already mentioned, "property rights" and "privacy rights" are not necessarily linked.

A renter receives the exact same privacy rights as a property owner; the landord cannot arbitrarily enter the apartment at any time, nor can the police enter without a warrant, even if the landlord consents. The right to privacy and protection from unreasonable search and seizure is conferred directly on the tenant, not the property owner.

As already stated, someone living in a communal environment has privacy rights, despite not personally owning their living space.

Your privacy rights are not terminated if you go into a hotel room, or a public bathroom, or make a call at a phone booth.

If I'm sitting on my front porch, and my neighbors have a clear and unimpeded line of sight to my porch, I have no claim to any privacy. I cannot walk around naked, even on my own property, if doing so results in public indecent exposure. If the cops walk past my house and see a bunch of pot plants in plain sight, they can bust me without needing a warrant.


And again: We do, in fact, have a recognized privacy right with things that we do not own, such as email, phone calls and other communications.

Well it looks like we are at an impasse. You are clearly a nihilistic positivist, whereas I am a libertarian individualist who respects the naturally occurring right of bodily sovereignty.

Your world view is the coward's way out, in my opinion.

 

[Henrin]

Well it looks like we are at an impasse. You are clearly a nihilistic positivist, whereas I am a libertarian individualist who respects the naturally occurring right of bodily sovereignty.

Your world view is the coward's way out, in my opinion.

His view is the "whatever government says is justified" view actually. He never presents any other kind of argument. It's kind of sad how little people are willing to think.

 

[ARealConservative]

If you have something to say to me, be a man and say it.

seems pretty obvious what is being said.

you are defending this invasion of privacy because the law says it is ok. yes, a warrant was had.

the law once said things like star chambers were ok. slavery was once the law of the land. today the government can obtain a single warrant to spy on all citizens.

I'm flat out putting you in the camp of the people that defended what I consider the indefensible.

 

[Visbek]

Well it looks like we are at an impasse.

What, you mean with your ignoring cases where there is absolutely no connection between privacy rights and property?

You are clearly a nihilistic positivist, whereas I am a libertarian individualist who respects the naturally occurring right of bodily sovereignty.

I'm not a nihilist, kthx.

And to the list of things that don't qualify as an argument, please add "declaration by fiat."

Your world view is the coward's way out, in my opinion.

Also add "ad hominems" to the things that are not an argument.

 

[Visbek]

His view is the "whatever government says is justified" view actually. He never presents any other kind of argument. It's kind of sad how little people are willing to think.

Uh, no. If you actually read my comments, you'll see that I am being critical of government surveillance.

My comments on how we do not own our bodies, or on the anachronistic idea of "mixing labor and natural resources," or pointing out situations where there are disjunctions between privacy rights and property rights is not based in actual legal statues.

Thanks for not paying attention!

 

[Guy Incognito]

I do not have the same set of rights over my own body. I cannot chop off my right hand arbitrarily; I cannot sell my organs; I do not necessarily have the right to commit suicide; I do not have the right to put cocaine into my body; I cannot rent out my body for sexual favors.

Yes, bodily sovereignty entails a right to do all those things. You have a natural right to do all those thing regardless of whether a gang of thugs that calls itself government uses coercion to limit those things.

In addition, referring to one's body as a type of "property" gives a clear opening to chattel slavery, which is obviously not acceptable.

No it doesn't, because bodily ownership means that the only one who can own a body is the person whose body it is. This necessarily preclude slavery.