BS: Your Right To Privacy

Subject: RE: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: JudeL
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 04:39 PM

The open to opinion stuff is not totally open ended as it is qualified and limited by an incredible amount of "guidance notes" which substantially narrow the definitions.

I do agree, that even so, what the rules are, will be mostly a matter of interpretation. Unfortunately as with any legislation in the end the meaning of such terms will depend upon individual case law and the precedents that each case sets.

Subject: RE: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 02:46 PM

That bit about "health or morals" is kinda open to opinion, too....

Subject: RE: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 02:25 PM

That's where the legal academics get their living, playing around with the loopholes, and working out ways of arguing how one article qualifies another and so forth.

Subject: RE: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 02:20 PM

That "necessary for the economic well-being" bit is a loophole big enough to drive a palace through!! Competitive information, for example, might seem necessary to those who don't have it. And the prevention of disorder is another loophole. How much disorder ya gonna prevent? Talk about open-ended!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 01:23 PM

We've now got The European Convention on Human Rights, which is a bit more specific Here is its version:

ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 12:55 PM

I read a good editorial recently discussing the legal history and the meaning of the word "privacy" in the late 1700's (and why that word would NEVER be put in a public document then.

Dear Clarence Thomas: It Happened on July 4, 1776

Subject: RE: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 02:30 AM

Bill of Rights -- Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their 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 person or things to be seized.

Privacy. This means no one has the right to go poking around in your residence unless they have a good reason, know exactly what they are looking for, and can convince some judge that they have probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place and the judge issues them a search warrant. And unless that is the case, what you do there is nobody's damned business.

Constitutional guarantee.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Jul 03 - 01:23 AM

There is an interesting essay on Rights on this page. Here's a little bit of what it says:

One of the most important and influential interpretations of moral rights is based on the work of Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth century philosopher. Kant maintained that each of us has a worth or a dignity that must be respected. This dignity makes it wrong for others to abuse us or to use us against our will. Kant expressed this idea in a moral principle: humanity must always be treated as an end, not merely as a means. To treat a person as a mere means is to use a person to advance one's own interest. But to treat a person as an end is to respect that person's dignity by allowing each the freedom to choose for himself or herself.

Kant's principle is often used to justify a fundamental moral right, the right to freely choose for oneself, and rights related to this fundamental right, sometimes called negative or liberty rights. Negative rights, such as the right to privacy, the right not to be killed, or the right to do what one wants with one's property, are rights that protect some form of human freedom or liberty, . These rights are called negative rights because each one imposes a negative duty on us--the duty to not interfere with a person's activities in a certain area. The right to privacy, for example, imposes on us the duty not to intrude into the private activities of a person.

Subject: RE: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: mack/misophist
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 09:40 PM

I wish I could remember the details. One of the better Supreme Court justices once said something along the lines of 'one of the most important rights a person can have is the right to be left alone'.

Subject: BS: Your Right To Privacy
From: LadyJean
Date: 04 Jul 03 - 09:30 PM

The supreme court's recent decision on gay rights, and Roe V Wade have something in common. They were both born of our constitutional right to privacy.
There is nothing in the constitution that says, "Every American shall enjoy a right to privacy". The supreme court pulled privacy out of a hat about a hundred years ago, taking note of the amendment that forbids quartering soldiers on the public, and deciding that meant we were entitled to our privacy.
That means that, if someone wants to publish your kid's picture, they have to get your permission. It means you have to sign a waiver to make a fool of yourself on some reality show.
It means that you and your doctor are the only parties who decide whether you take Viagra or not.
In short, you may take exception to Roe V. Wade, or Gay Rights, or the Supreme court making law, but you still have to agree that that right to privacy is a nice thing to have.
Now, I am betting that Ashcroft and company are going to try and make it go away. I am betting they will challenge the supreme court decision that gave us that right in the first place. Judge Bork had that in mind, fortunately, he didn't make it onto the court.
So, if you don't want John Ashcroft listening to your phone calls, I reccomend you prepare to fight for your right to privacy.
When they drafted the constitution and the bill of rights, we could protect our privacy by locking the doors and putting up the shutters.
The government wasn't particularly interested in our sex lives. Much has changed since then. Snooping is just too damn easy these days. Make sure the powers that be know you like having a right to privacy, and you want to keep it.