• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

  • Yes, and without qualification.

    Votes: 7 46.7%
  • Yes, but limited (please elaborate on limits).

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • No, we really don't need it.

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • Other.

    Votes: 2 13.3%

  • Total voters
    15

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

If you could write it, how would it read and what would it cover?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
68,520
Reaction score
38,819
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
How would your proposed amendment differ from the 4th?
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,803
Reaction score
16,460
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

If you could write it, how would it read and what would it cover?


I belieave that the government has no business spying on the people IE their employers. So yes I would support a Constitutional amendment for privacy.It would also make it apply to businesses as well, because big brother is wrong regardless if its government businesses doing it. It would ban the government and business from watching people(with exception to employees only at the work place and customers only at the place of business ), collecting data on people, data-mining.It would also ban tracking people and or their property.THis would also ban the government and companies from contracting with other governments and businesses outside the US to spy on the people. The penalties for anyone trying to undermine this would be 10-20 years in prison.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,116
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
"Privacy" is a massively broad topic. I'd need to know exactly what the OP means.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,803
Reaction score
16,460
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
How would your proposed amendment differ from the 4th?
The 4th amendment is not about privacy.It is about searches of individuals,their personal effects,documents and other property. It says nothing about the government watching you.


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
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The 4th amendment is not about privacy.It is about searches of individuals,their personal effects and other property. It says nothing about the government watching you.
The 4th Amendment covers some aspects of privacy, but not all.


"Privacy" is a massively broad topic. I'd need to know exactly what the OP means.
That's why I included the question for how you (general 'you') would write it, because it is broad and as such could mean something entirely different from one person to the next.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

If you could write it, how would it read and what would it cover?

A warrant is required for the state to keep data on or engage in the surveillance of any person and must notify said person of the scope of the invasion of their privacy within 30 days after the surveillance has concluded and destroy all data.
 
Last edited:

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
68,520
Reaction score
38,819
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The 4th amendment is not about privacy.It is about searches of individuals,their personal effects,documents and other property. It says nothing about the government watching you.


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 no gov't action now results from the "watching" then what would be prevented? No more motor vehicle/firearms records? No more automatic reporting of income for taxation? No more auditing of tax returns? No more traffic cameras? At what point does "watching" or automatic review of data become an invasion of privacy - so long as no gov't action is taken?
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

If you could write it, how would it read and what would it cover?
Yes I support the 4th amendment.
 

Voltaire X

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
551
Reaction score
206
Location
New York, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes I support the 4th amendment.

It would be more than just what the 4th Amendment protects. The 4th amendment addresses unreasonable government searches and seizures. I would like to see an amendment that limits what potential employers can require their potential employees to provide. For instance, I think that requiring employees to give their social networking (facebook) login info and passwords is an invasion of privacy and morally wrong, and I'd like to see people protected from that. I also think that drug testing for jobs that do not require use of heavy/dangerous machinery is an invasion of privacy and immoral. Another example is asking the question "Have you ever been charged with a crime?" It should be totally illegal to require employees to answer that. Asking if they've been CONVICTED is fine, but the fact that you could be mistakenly charged, later found innocent, but still discriminated against simply because of the charge is BEYOND ridiculous.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
It would be more than just what the 4th Amendment protects. The 4th amendment addresses unreasonable government searches and seizures. I would like to see an amendment that limits what potential employers can require their potential employees to provide. For instance, I think that requiring employees to give their social networking (facebook) login info and passwords is an invasion of privacy and morally wrong, and I'd like to see people protected from that. I also think that drug testing for jobs that do not require use of heavy/dangerous machinery is an invasion of privacy and immoral. Another example is asking the question "Have you ever been charged with a crime?" It should be totally illegal to require employees to answer that. Asking if they've been CONVICTED is fine, but the fact that you could be mistakenly charged, later found innocent, but still discriminated against simply because of the charge is BEYOND ridiculous.

I'm with you on all these, but especially the part in red.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,803
Reaction score
16,460
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If no gov't action now results from the "watching" then what would be prevented? No more motor vehicle/firearms records? No more automatic reporting of income for taxation? No more auditing of tax returns? No more traffic cameras? At what point does "watching" or automatic review of data become an invasion of privacy - so long as no gov't action is taken?

There would be some exceptions like for paying income taxes auditing tax returns. But there should not be any traffic cams,and the maintaining for firearm and vehicle records.

It shouldn't matter if no government action was taken, it still doesn't change the fact they were watching your ass.If some sicko was watching your wife or kids would you be relieved if that sicko didn't beat off while watching them or would still be pissed and want the sicko locked up so that he can't watch anyone again?
 

joko104

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
63,609
Reaction score
22,428
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes I would and see that as a great need. Wording? I'm not a legal scholar.
 

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

If you could write it, how would it read and what would it cover?

We sort of already have one; The Fourth Amendment. I don't know what LSD the Supreme Court was on when they saw a right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Excellent question. I don't have a minute right know to write the language I'd like to see but something that:

1. Covered private organizations maintaining files on people without their expressed and deliberate permission requiring a signature with an explanation of their agreement to forfeit their right to privacy in BOLD PRINT as opposed to fine print or burried in pages of legalese mumbo junbo that nobody ever reads. The forfeiture of the right to privacy (likely out of ignorance IMHO) expires annually so if a person is duped into handing over their right to privacy to use something like a rewards card or whatever, they must get the person to re-up their permission to have the organization to maintain profiles on them each year expressly saying I want XYZ, inc. to violate my privacy.

2. Medical records, already statutorily private (supposedly) but since we're addressing privacy, make it constitutional.

3. If the government spies on someone, they should have a good reason to; get court permission and once the person is deemed not to be a threat, privately NOTIFY HIM of the investigation and why disclosing all information gathered explaining most concerns are thankfully false alarms but all potential threats must be thoroughly investigated and then DESTROY THE DATA COLLECTED.

4. Any invasion of an American's privacy using offshore shelters to avoid US Constitutional law makes any American involved in such schemes subject to criminal and civil liabilities, foreign nationals additionally subject to deportation and/or are banned from travel to the US.

5. I know its a big reversal in our current criminal justice culture but I think people who are suspects of crimes should be afforded privacy protection until such time as they are convicted provided they cooperate with officials and don't go into hiding where publicity is needed to apprehend them. Perpwalks and mugshots on the news injure innocent people's reputations under a system where we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. I have a relative who could not get a job or rent an apartment because he was arrested but later the charges were dropped because potential employers and landlords have access to the arrest records and treat him like a convicted felon despite his status as innocent.

6. The sexual offender database needs to be used to protect the innocent, not shame people who pose no to threat to anyone and is used as a form of punishment. Only forcible rapists and pedophiles should be listed; not boyfriend turns 18 and girlfriend is still 17, guys can't hold it any longer and takes a leak behind a tree, college girl has too much to drink at Marti Gras and flashes the twins at the crowd, consensual acts in the back of a car at night, etc. Not that I think any of those things are okay but they aren't endangering the public there therefore should not be listed on a registry that is intended to warn the public of a real threat to our safety.

7. Identity of sexual assault victims unless efforts to locate missing people requires disclosure of the dangers they are in, etc. For the most part its already practiced but only as a courtesy and at the discretion of the media. They sometimes make exceptions.
 
Last edited:

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

If you could write it, how would it read and what would it cover?

how would that be done?

because under the founding principles of America with our DOI, which is u.s. code and organic law for the u.s. rights are not created by government or the people., but from the creator.

if rights can be created through the amendment process, then rights could be created for one group of people and not others......something which is outside, our nations foundation

once something is in the constitution it constitutionality cannot be questioned.

a new right to privacy, .......would come from the 9th amendment.
 

Bob Blaylock

Electrician
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2011
Messages
13,745
Reaction score
8,546
Location
North 38°28′ West 121°26′
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

If you could write it, how would it read and what would it cover?

Yes, I would support such an Amendment. I would word it something like this…

“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.”
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If in public, it's difficult to enforce or expect that. In private or an assumed private conversation, they should require a warrant, and there should be more oversight on whether the warrant should have been given. I do think an amendment along those lines would strengthen the fulfillment of respect and common decency that free people are entitled to.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes. I would support it since it appears necessary for some asinine reason, but on the condition that the word body is defined in such a way to bar taking DNA and fingerprints on arrest. I don't care how that is done, but it needs done.

Or perhaps it would be better to make it clear that being arrested is NOT the same thing as a warrant, since apparently the supreme court believes a warrant and an arrest are one in the same.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If in public, it's difficult to enforce or expect that. In private or an assumed private conversation, they should require a warrant, and there should be more oversight on whether the warrant should have been given. I do think an amendment along those lines would strengthen the fulfillment of respect and common decency that free people are entitled to.

Talking to you here on this forum is in the public and just like if I was talking to you in a private area the government has no business trying to find out what we are talking about. It is not their concern and no amount of "you can't expect privacy" matters to what authority the government has.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I would like it codified that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in all of their communications and activities. It should require an express waver in almost every situation to forfeit that expectation. Obviously, the direct recipient of a communication or action constitutes such a waver, but ONLY THEM. If you're talking on a cell phone in a public place, you should legally be able to expect that people aren't going to eavesdrop on you. It's rude, and you reasonably expect privacy from it. So the government shouldn't be doing it either. They shouldn't be reading your e-mails, or basically sticking their nose anywhere it's not wanted... unless they get a warrant. And judges should actually be expected to deny warrants without really good reasons for them. The whole legal methodology for privacy is about finding various reasons to deny people their privacy. The whole mindset of privacy law is a horrible starting place. Start with a really strong right to privacy, and only infringe on it when absolutely necessary.
 

John Liberty

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
275
Reaction score
72
Location
Ask the NSA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Would you support a Constitutional Amendment for privacy?

If you could write it, how would it read and what would it cover?

We have one, it's called the 4th! But if I wrote another amendment elaborating more firmly on privacy it would probably abolish the TSA, the IRS and the NSA. Doing that already cuts down on the lack of privacy, not exactly fool proof but that would be three less useless and unconstitutional bureaucracies in the country.
 

Hard Truth

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
9,122
Reaction score
3,751
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree that the 4th amendment should already protect our right to privacy but the Supremes have not agreed consistently. A clarifying amendment might be helpful such as

"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects includes all forms of communication intended for a limited number of recipients."

I also support this consenting adults amendment:

"The private, consensual behavior of adults that does not result in direct harm to another party shall not be subject to government regulation."
 
Top Bottom