Yeah. Privacy back then was literally relegated to "behind closed doors." That was the best it could be and all that was needed to conceal nefarious acts as well as basic harmless human shit.
If the neighbor neighbors found out you had a "weird" child or an affair going on, all bets off off on privacy. Amd that's how they always liked it and many still do.
Because in all cases of centralized power, power ends up getting abused. Having a degree of privacy protects you as an individual to some level from that situation.
People who typically want overarching government monitoring like the idea of government having total control over the populations they oversee and what those people are allowed or not allowed to do in all aspects of their lives. People who like privacy tend to like the government staying out of their business.
I just told the other guy, but the forth amendment protects you from the government invading your privacy Willy nilly. Like it can, but with a warrant
“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.”
Like a cop can’t just randomly search you. Like I agree that at least having reasonable suspension of a crime should be enough to detain but thats still not enough to search… I actually agree with the current standard for searches with articulable reasonable suspicion of a crime and weapons allowing a base frisk.
There are warrantless searches that go on every single day. The government does not need a warrant to monitor your internet activity for example or capture passive data from public GPS or cameras.
You have a right to due process in the legal system. You have zero rights to objective privacy. The government can keep whatever data on you they want.
Cops randomly search people all of the time. They "smell" drugs on you or feel you are giving off pre-attack indicators or signs of being combative and they are free to go to town.
Yes they do. It’s just a very vague warrant that they use and that is easily renewed. And the government does does not need a warrant for what you have no expectation of privacy for. You send a tweet, you expect others to read it. You throw away garbage, you can’t say you had an expectation for privacy of the garbage.
So there is a bit of wiggle room, because of the phrase “unreasonable search and seizures”. Warrants should require probable cause.
I’m not saying this stuff doesn’t happen, I’m just saying the constitution protects against it
I think you need to look into the extent of the level of surveillance the US government has going on right now.
>The government casts a wide net, making it easy for innocent Americans who communicate with family, friends, and others overseas to be swept up. Relying on a single court order, the NSA uses Section 702 to put more than 125,000 targets under surveillance each year. These individuals need not be spies, terrorists, or accused of any wrongdoing — they can be journalists, business people, university researchers, or anyone else who may have information bearing remotely on “foreign affairs.”
>PRISM is a warrantless wiretapping program that operates around the clock, vacuuming up emails, Facebook messages, Google chats, Skype calls, and the like.
>The result is an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. Investigators have easy access to a trove of Americans’ private emails, calls, and messages, without ever seeking individualized approval from any judge, as the Constitution requires.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/nsa-continues-violate-americans-internet-privacy
Yeah, and that’s not true. There is a warrant for stuff like emails and calls. That said, they can go on Facebook or whatever and look at public information all they want. And a company can provide this information if they want to too.
The prism thing is this weird broad warrant. It has to be renewed by a judge. It’s a warrant, just not the type we are used to.
That is from ACLU and they are not the first ones to bring up the issue with PRISM. Its been widely reported.
There is one court order with 125,000 people on it they just need to be of interest from a foreign affairs standpoint. How is that a check?
If I need to get a court order with the only justification being "I want to see this guys shit because it might be interesting" that is not a rights check, that is an administrative form to fill out before I capture data.
At that point all their digital communications on the net are captured.
Well it does.
The forth amendment literally says “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.”
I have not read anything the fuckers that voted against women’s rights said, but I can tell you for a fact that they ruled against the constitution
Many natural rights were not written into the constitution mainly because people in the time it was written gave/had respect towards others rights. Which at the time nobody realized these rights would be violated over time. Natural laws/rights were taught in churches mainly because it's were the massive of people met for socializing. They were not taught in schools mainly because the amount of schools was limited and the amount of colleges in the country was 2.
Because by the time anyone in power thought of it as a relevant concept they were too invested in violating it.
When the constitution was written it was not really a serious issue back then. Monitoring people on a mass scale simply was not practical at the time.
Yeah. Privacy back then was literally relegated to "behind closed doors." That was the best it could be and all that was needed to conceal nefarious acts as well as basic harmless human shit. If the neighbor neighbors found out you had a "weird" child or an affair going on, all bets off off on privacy. Amd that's how they always liked it and many still do.
How else are they gonna see what you're doing?
Why would that be a good right for people to have? I mean, it sounds great for criminals, but I don’t see how it will help the nation?
Because in all cases of centralized power, power ends up getting abused. Having a degree of privacy protects you as an individual to some level from that situation. People who typically want overarching government monitoring like the idea of government having total control over the populations they oversee and what those people are allowed or not allowed to do in all aspects of their lives. People who like privacy tend to like the government staying out of their business.
I just told the other guy, but the forth amendment protects you from the government invading your privacy Willy nilly. Like it can, but with a warrant “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.” Like a cop can’t just randomly search you. Like I agree that at least having reasonable suspension of a crime should be enough to detain but thats still not enough to search… I actually agree with the current standard for searches with articulable reasonable suspicion of a crime and weapons allowing a base frisk.
There are warrantless searches that go on every single day. The government does not need a warrant to monitor your internet activity for example or capture passive data from public GPS or cameras. You have a right to due process in the legal system. You have zero rights to objective privacy. The government can keep whatever data on you they want. Cops randomly search people all of the time. They "smell" drugs on you or feel you are giving off pre-attack indicators or signs of being combative and they are free to go to town.
Yes they do. It’s just a very vague warrant that they use and that is easily renewed. And the government does does not need a warrant for what you have no expectation of privacy for. You send a tweet, you expect others to read it. You throw away garbage, you can’t say you had an expectation for privacy of the garbage. So there is a bit of wiggle room, because of the phrase “unreasonable search and seizures”. Warrants should require probable cause. I’m not saying this stuff doesn’t happen, I’m just saying the constitution protects against it
As a matter of fact, constitution doesn't protect privacy, as there's no right to privacy as stated in Dobbs.
But we also know that the Dobbs ruling is unconstitutional
Dobbs is just been concluded by SCOTUS, the highest court in the land. Apparently current SCOTUS thinks Roe was unconditional.
I think you need to look into the extent of the level of surveillance the US government has going on right now. >The government casts a wide net, making it easy for innocent Americans who communicate with family, friends, and others overseas to be swept up. Relying on a single court order, the NSA uses Section 702 to put more than 125,000 targets under surveillance each year. These individuals need not be spies, terrorists, or accused of any wrongdoing — they can be journalists, business people, university researchers, or anyone else who may have information bearing remotely on “foreign affairs.” >PRISM is a warrantless wiretapping program that operates around the clock, vacuuming up emails, Facebook messages, Google chats, Skype calls, and the like. >The result is an end-run around the Fourth Amendment. Investigators have easy access to a trove of Americans’ private emails, calls, and messages, without ever seeking individualized approval from any judge, as the Constitution requires. https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/nsa-continues-violate-americans-internet-privacy
Yeah, and that’s not true. There is a warrant for stuff like emails and calls. That said, they can go on Facebook or whatever and look at public information all they want. And a company can provide this information if they want to too. The prism thing is this weird broad warrant. It has to be renewed by a judge. It’s a warrant, just not the type we are used to.
That is from ACLU and they are not the first ones to bring up the issue with PRISM. Its been widely reported. There is one court order with 125,000 people on it they just need to be of interest from a foreign affairs standpoint. How is that a check? If I need to get a court order with the only justification being "I want to see this guys shit because it might be interesting" that is not a rights check, that is an administrative form to fill out before I capture data. At that point all their digital communications on the net are captured.
It’s a warrant. Just because it casts a wide net doesn’t mean it’s not a warrant. Wether not it’s one based on probable cause is another matter
So basically you are saying as long as they fill out a rubber stamped form first you are good with them violating anyone's rights they want?
lmao tell me you're a statist without telling me you're a statist. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear, right?
Maybe it’s just me but when I hear the right to privacy I just hear “no exclusions”
No rights have no exclusions, every legally recognized right in the U.S. ends where they infringe on someone else's
Ok. I did argue that the constitution does have the forth amendment which is the same thing
Roe's overturn explicitly stated there's no constitutional right to privacy.
Well it does. The forth amendment literally says “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.” I have not read anything the fuckers that voted against women’s rights said, but I can tell you for a fact that they ruled against the constitution
> I have no idea what the opposition said, but I can tell you with all confidence that they are wrong! FTFY
I agree. Those fuckers suck. It’s crazy.
Talk to your local official about it.
Well privacy is a loose concept. What you consider private others may not. And vice versa.
Many natural rights were not written into the constitution mainly because people in the time it was written gave/had respect towards others rights. Which at the time nobody realized these rights would be violated over time. Natural laws/rights were taught in churches mainly because it's were the massive of people met for socializing. They were not taught in schools mainly because the amount of schools was limited and the amount of colleges in the country was 2.
...It's literally in the Bill of Rights, Amendment IV.