There is no right to privacy

[Guy Incognito]

There is no right to privacy. All rights arise out of bodily sovereignty, including the right to own property. The right to own property is how privacy arises, the right to own property means that the government or a third party cannot search or seize your property without a warrant. This is not a right to privacy, however. Privacy is merely a side effect.

With all the talk about the right to privacy, lately, not many people seem to know what they are talking about. If the government collects data about you without interfering with your person or property, they haven't violated your rights!

 

[soot]

If the government collects data about you without interfering with your person or property, they haven't violated your rights!

I remember reading somewhere about the right of the people to be secure in their papers too.

And I wonder how that's to best be interpreted in the modern age.

I know, "Curse those Founders for not prognosticating the eventual invention of wireline, then wireless communication, the Internet, GPS, and whatever comes next".

But I think the best we can do absent some 18th century analog to modern technology is to study the Founders' intent based upon mediums of communication in use at the time they developed our system of government.

In light of that, the government has no more business snooping in on my telephone calls and email, without a warrant, than they have opening my mail.

 

[X Factor]

Collecting data about me for potential use later is interference with my person.

 

[ARealConservative]

If the government collects data about you without interfering with your person or property, they haven't violated your rights!

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.

 

[captainawesome]

There is no right to privacy. All rights arise out of bodily sovereignty, including the right to own property. The right to own property is how privacy arises, the right to own property means that the government or a third party cannot search or seize your property without a warrant. This is not a right to privacy, however. Privacy is merely a side effect.

With all the talk about the right to privacy, lately, not many people seem to know what they are talking about. If the government collects data about you without interfering with your person or property, they haven't violated your rights!

There is no right to property either.

 

[rocket88]

There is no explicit right to privacy, but I think it's definitely implied in the rights that are specifically delineated in the Bill of Rights. The first 5 Amendments lay out your right to have your own opinion and religion, protection from quartering of troops in your house, protection from unreasonable search, and the right to not give testimony that incrimates you. And of course, the right to have weapons to defend these rights.

Also, the Ninth Amendment (not often cited) which says

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This clearly says that just because it isn't specifically guaranteed, that doesn't mean it's not a right.

 

[ARealConservative]

There is no right to property either.

if true, my fist could enforceable remove your head from the physical space I would like to temporarily possess.

what a civilized world we would live in without the right to property

 

[CanadaJohn]

There is no right to privacy. All rights arise out of bodily sovereignty, including the right to own property. The right to own property is how privacy arises, the right to own property means that the government or a third party cannot search or seize your property without a warrant. This is not a right to privacy, however. Privacy is merely a side effect.

With all the talk about the right to privacy, lately, not many people seem to know what they are talking about. If the government collects data about you without interfering with your person or property, they haven't violated your rights!

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.

 

[captainawesome]

if true, my fist could enforceable remove your head from the physical space I would like to temporarily possess.

what a civilized world we would live in without the right to property

Meh. Privacy and property are rights only if we decide they are.

 

[MaggieD]

There is no right to privacy. All rights arise out of bodily sovereignty, including the right to own property. The right to own property is how privacy arises, the right to own property means that the government or a third party cannot search or seize your property without a warrant. This is not a right to privacy, however. Privacy is merely a side effect.

With all the talk about the right to privacy, lately, not many people seem to know what they are talking about. If the government collects data about you without interfering with your person or property, they haven't violated your rights!

That's a good point. I'm trying to think it through -- if LE walks in your home and exceeds the scope of its search warrant, no one goes to jail. It's just that whatever they collected cannot be used against you. Nor can anything they later find because they found that inadmissible whatever. I'm not sure that's the 'end of the story' but I do understand what you're saying.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed an implicit "right to privacy." You are incorrect.

 

[ARealConservative]

Meh. Privacy and property are rights only if we decide they are.

we decided. privacy and property are protected rights to different degrees

 

[Master PO]

There is no right to property either.

sorry.. according to the founding fathers, there is a right to property.

meaning the right to acquire it.

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.......happiness translates into property says the court.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.---samual adams

 

[Guy Incognito]

I remember reading somewhere about the right of the people to be secure in their papers too.

And I wonder how that's to best be interpreted in the modern age.

I know, "Curse those Founders for not prognosticating the eventual invention of wireline, then wireless communication, the Internet, GPS, and whatever comes next".

But I think the best we can do absent some 18th century analog to modern technology is to study the Founders' intent based upon mediums of communication in use at the time they developed our system of government.

In light of that, the government has no more business snooping in on my telephone calls and email, without a warrant, than they have opening my mail.

Well you gave all that stuff up voluntarily to google, or verizon, or whoever. So it is their papers, not yours. So sure, the government is infringing on googles rights when they diesel that day without a warrant. Except that they have a warrant.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

There is no right to privacy. All rights arise out of bodily sovereignty, including the right to own property. The right to own property is how privacy arises, the right to own property means that the government or a third party cannot search or seize your property without a warrant. This is not a right to privacy, however. Privacy is merely a side effect.

With all the talk about the right to privacy, lately, not many people seem to know what they are talking about. If the government collects data about you without interfering with your person or property, they haven't violated your rights!

Correct, there is no right to privacy, however, that could be subject to search and seizure laws.

 

[captainawesome]

sorry.. according to the founding fathers, there is a right to property.

meaning the right to acquire it.

life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.......happiness translates into property says the court.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.---samual adams

Privacy exiats as a right with in that framework.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

There is no right to privacy. All rights arise out of bodily sovereignty, including the right to own property. The right to own property is how privacy arises, the right to own property means that the government or a third party cannot search or seize your property without a warrant. This is not a right to privacy, however. Privacy is merely a side effect.

With all the talk about the right to privacy, lately, not many people seem to know what they are talking about. If the government collects data about you without interfering with your person or property, they haven't violated your rights!

The indirect right to privacy that stems from a protection against search and seizure has been deemed a right to privacy by the supreme court in Griswold v. Connecticut, unless of course you're opposed to judicial review. That being said, in Olmstead v. US that same court ruled that wiretapping of any kind is legal because its not expressly prohibited by the constitution.

Which means, we do have a right to privacy, but our communications are not covered by said right. This I do not agree with, but have no legal support for my rejection of it.

 

[Master PO]

Privacy exiats as a right with in that framework.

property or privacy?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

the DOI is u.s. Code , it organic law of the u.s., it is the foundation of the constitution.

every person, according to our BOR is to be secure in their person, property, material goods, unless a warrant is issued by a judge, and then that warrant still must state what government is looking and where, ( its cant be a fishing expedition Warrant)

 

[Fisher]

That's a good point. I'm trying to think it through -- if LE walks in your home and exceeds the scope of its search warrant, no one goes to jail. It's just that whatever they collected cannot be used against you. Nor can anything they later find because they found that inadmissible whatever. I'm not sure that's the 'end of the story' but I do understand what you're saying.

You are correct and he is wrong on that. The right has been construed to be the right to not have it used against you. They could do a warrantless search of your property and take things and use it against Turtledude. He would have no remedy and you could only sue them civilly, though the public outcry against any standing policy as to such searches would likely have them criminalized by state or local law pretty quick.

 

[soot]

Well you gave all that stuff up voluntarily to google, or verizon, or whoever. So it is their papers, not yours.

Which presumes that Google and Verizon have absolutely no fiduciary responsibility to handle that information in a responsible manner.

I don't buy that at all. Not for a minute.

Except that they have a warrant.

Right, based on the same brainstorming that made fusion centers and the original NSA warrantless wiretap program seem like stellar ideas.

Until each case collapsed under scrutiny.

Look, I understand that the government has a nominal legal justification for doing this stuff, I just think that now that what they're doing is out in the open and we understand the scale of it that either some review board or court is going to put an end to it sooner rather than later.

Because in actual practice its outrageous and illegal in principal.

No doubt some of these phone records have proven useful in some investigation, but it doesn’t follow that the indiscriminate collection of such records is necessary for investigations, any more than general warrants to search homes are necessary just because sometimes searches of homes are useful to police.

We do have a right to privacy in our papers.

Records of our electronic communications (even if it's "just" -LOL- metadata) are legally analogous to "papers".

As such they're protected by the 4th Amendment.

The fact that SCOTUS has previously, mistakenly in my opinion, ruled to the contrary notwithstanding.

And this is going to get turned around, just like so much other nonsense that's been done in the name of protecting us from Islamic boogeymen has been.

I get that you disagree with me.

I don't care.

You're wrong.

 

[Visbek]

There is no right to privacy. All rights arise out of bodily sovereignty, including the right to own property. The right to own property is how privacy arises, the right to own property means that the government or a third party cannot search or seize your property without a warrant. This is not a right to privacy, however. Privacy is merely a side effect.

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.

With all the talk about the right to privacy, lately, not many people seem to know what they are talking about.

You don't say

If the government collects data about you without interfering with your person or property, they haven't violated your rights!

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.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You are correct and he is wrong on that. The right has been construed to be the right to not have it used against you. They could do a warrantless search of your property and take things and use it against Turtledude. He would have no remedy and you could only sue them civilly, though the public outcry against any standing policy as to such searches would likely have them criminalized by state or local law pretty quick.

This is in the philosophy forum for a reason, because it is not about the law it is about the philosophy of rights.

 

[Fisher]

This is in the philosophy forum for a reason, because it is not about the law it is about the philosophy of rights.

Strange that your op is all about the government and what they can and cannot do if it is "not about the law". Even stranger that the "philosophy" part is utterly absent from the same OP that is supposedly all about it.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Strange that your op is all about the government and what they can and cannot do if it is "not about the law". Even stranger that the "philosophy" part is utterly absent from the same OP that is supposedly all about it.

Strange that you don't understand what political philosophy is, or that the fact that the post is in the philosophy forum might imply that it is about philosophy. Now stay on topic and quit your disruptive trolling.

 

[Fisher]

Strange that you don't undeattend what political philosophy is, or that the fact that the post is in the philosophy forum might imply that it is about philosophy. Now stay on topic and quit your disruptive trolling.

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.