Privacy Is Overrated

Discussion in 'Civil Rights & Privacy' started by Frank, May 1, 2013.

  1. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    That's the title of an Op-Ed in the NY Daily News.

    This asstard need to be impeached. No way should he be a sitting federal judge.
     
  2. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Posner is a judge on a federal appeals court (district 7). It's sobering that this kind of a person is sitting on the bench. He has the intellectual dishonesty to suggest it was surveillance that caught the two perps when it was individual people's cameras that caught them and linked them to the crime. That kind of integrity, sitting on the bench.

    Is privacy just concealment? (what do YOU have to hide? something wrong with YOU...if you have to hide it). It is a personal property right, is it not? Your medical records about your body, are yours and those to whom you need to share them with, on the basis of confidentiality. Your financial records, again, yours, and the person you transact with. The federal government has details of some of these transactions to verify tax compliance, but strictly limits access even to that. Why? Because that information BELONGS to NOBODY ELSE.

    As for what Posner calls "personal peccadilloes", is the desire for privacy here simply a desire to market a particular picture of oneself? Everyone has moral defects of one sort or another, as pilgrims "en via": are we to be identified with what is worst in ourselves rather than with the good we strive toward and which, depending on one's religious persuasion, we may have a real hope of obtaining? And more to the point, where in the enumerated powers, Mr. Posner, is the power given to the federal apparatus to ferret out, store, and disseminate to others information about human actions of this kind? Is it not rather the case that limits were placed on the federal precisely to PREVENT such federal activities?

    You've spent a lifetime breathing the air of liberty, Mr. Posner, and drinking its water. What a pity that you've appreciated none of it.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  3. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    What bothers me is that he's substituting the bogus "right to privacy" for the legitimate right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    I am of the opinion that we, the people, must always tirelessly defend our right to be secure against unwarranted incursions by our government.

    Privacy is indeed a frivolous matter. Security is not.
     
  4. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    I see them as one and the same.
     
  5. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I agree with Frank. The government has a fixed set of enumerated powers. EVERYTHING not ceded to it under those powers belongs to us, whether called out in the Bill of Rights or not.
     
  6. RB

    RB Founding Member

    That's the way it is suppose to work but the politicians, courts, and others have decided the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says.
     
  7. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    The Romans had a good idea for such as these: Tie them to a post, coat them in pitch, and light them up.
     
  8. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    One nit-picking distinction -- those powers were granted, not ceded. A grant can be revoked. The framers were meticulous in their choice of words.
     
  9. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    Anyone who attempts to revoke the grant will be labeled a terrorist.
     
    KrazyKat likes this.
  10. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

     
  11. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Yes. Poor choice of word on my part. Granted, as you say, implying the CONDITIONALITY on which the grant was made. The grant and flow of power is from the peoples of the states to the federal and that flow continues only with the continued assent of the people.

    RB has a point, but it goes only so far. There is nothing inevitable about the direction of the wind. It blows one way, then another. The political winds over the past decades have been going the way of the federal absolutists, but that is changing. Federal power is fading by the second, measured in terms of its solvency, prestige with the people, effectiveness, and its benefits. The federal government is perceived to be dangerous to liberty by a large and growing percentage of citizens. More and more states are asserting their 10th amendment prerogatives and more and more people are revisiting the Constitution. When the people insist on its being followed, it will be followed. I would not discount the influence of that agreement, not when so many insist that its terms be respected.
     
  12. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I do not. If you dig through the Police misconduct files, you'll read about a case where a local PD SWAT teamed a mother and her adult daughter with the local TV station on hand, purely as a publicitystunt. The women had an unsecured wireless network in their home. The PD claimed they didn't "break in" because the two women didn't lock their door, and the confiscated the adult daughter's laptop. The young woman used her laptop for school, among other things.

    The excuse for the publicity stunt raid was that someone had used the women's unsecured wireless network to communicate unkind words to the local Police. It was discovered shortly thereafter that the culprit was a neighborhood teen/thug/rebel-without-a-clue.

    The adult daughter has been deprived of the use of her laptop indefinitely. This has had a profound effect on the young woman's ability to do her college course-work.

    The problem with taking the young woman's computer is that this indefinite confiscation has deprived the young woman of a very important tool which she has definite property rights to. Privacy isn't the issue here, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is the issue here.

    Nothing about the police raid was reasonable, and the young woman's computer should have been returned immediately. These women may have had their privacy intruded upon, but the security of their persons, house, papers and effects has been severely violated.

    I am confident that the woman are much more upset about their permanant sense of lost security and deprivation of property than they are about the brief violation of their privacy.

    Unreasonable searches and seizures are about a lot more than mere privacy. If a pack of government thugs can bang down my door, threaten me at gunpoint, throw me around like a sack of meal, damage and "confiscate" my property, and generally terrorize me at the convenience of the government, then my SECURITY is my most urgent concern, not my privacy.
     
  13. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    That would be the legal statute you use to file a lawsuit, yes. The "right to privacy" as a legal term seems too vague to be useful, although it might have specific legal meanings that I'm ignorant of. It could mean any number of things including the right to be left alone. The main point is that the federal government has no Constitutional powers allowing it to accumulate dossiers on its citizens.
     
  14. RB

    RB Founding Member

    I may have a point but enforcing my point is a whole different matter.

    Causing change in today's world is a long drawn out process. Putting people out of office peaceably is about the only realistic means available to the populace. The only other way that I know of is by force and the playing field for using force is so tilted against the citizen it's not even funny. Back in the 1700's everyone had pretty much the same weapons but that is not true today. Government has all manner of weapons that could be used against the people but we only have rifles, shotguns, and pistols available. No military capable aircraft, no heavy mortars, no rockets, no heavy guns, no tanks, no armored vehicles, and most importantly little or no communication network.

    So that only leaves us with political changes as a viable means to bring change. That's why it so important to know your candidates and to vote out those people who don't represent your viewpoint. We have seen some Republican electeds that have changed colors rather dramatically but they sold their bill of goods and the people bought it, hook, line and sinker long enough to get into office. These kind of people should face a recall election but that is easier said than done.

    If you want my opinion I think we're toast!
     
  15. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Link, please?
     
  16. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Chew on this ... :D

    29% is a pretty significant number of "malcontents"!

    CNS News: Poll: 29% of Registered Voters Believe Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary in Next Few Years (May 2 2013)

    Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University.

    The poll, which surveyed 863 registered voters and had a margin of error of +/-3.4, focused on both gun control and the possibility of a need for an armed revolution in the United States to protect liberty.

    The survey asked whether respondents agreed, disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know or refused to respond to the statement: "In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties"

    Twenty-nine percent said they agreed, 47 percent said they disagreed, 18 percent said they neither agreed nor disagreed, 5 percent said they were unsure, and 1 percent refused to respond.
     
  17. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

  18. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Changes are coming much more rapidly than this, forced by external events. That those changes will be fully positive and peaceful is perhaps overly optimistic.

    Nobody in their right mind would wish for that outcome. But haven't you just described Vietnam and Afghanistan? Places where the US won every battle and lost the war? Guerrilla tactics are the refuge of the outgunned, and have been successful since Napolean's time. It's hard to contemplate that here. Perhaps the right accommodations will be made to make this unnecessary.

    Financially, monetarily, and economically, we are toast. It'll be interesting to see how people respond to the end of the gravy train. There will be a lot of bootstrapping and rebuilding to do.
     
  19. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I too found that somewhat thought provoking. I don't agree with respect to the "armed revolution." I do think it's time for the nation's low information voters and non-voters to start paying attention. If people won't bother to vote and put some thought into who they're voting for, than I don't think they'll bother to participate in any armed revolution.

    I know I wouldn't participate in an armed revolution, except under a very special and wildly improbable set of circumstances.
     
  20. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Think 1776.

    We need to finish the job.
     

Share This Page