how-to block ads
|
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to CrazyFingers
Re: Let's get this out of the way...
said by CrazyFingers  :If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right comrade? I wouldn't go that route.
I would go the "since I was a dopey high school student I was smart enough to know that if it was said on the phone, or sent electronically someone can probably monitor it" route.
You really want privacy? Drive out into the middle of nowhere, and meet the person you want to communicate with.
Even then, who's to say that person isn't wearing a tape recorder when you meet with them?
Any sense of privacy anyone ever had living in the modern age is a work of fiction. Has been since the early 20th century.
You can kid yourself otherwise, but it's been that way since your first telephone, Master-charge, or ATM card.
Shit, it's gotten to the point where your hopeful to be ex wife can subpoena EZ Pass to get your toll records.
Privacy? Just opening yourself up to get caught.
Sneakiness and paranoia. NOW THAT'S THE TICKET!!
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
November 9th, @02:36PM
| said by N3OGH :You really want privacy? Drive out into the middle of nowhere, and meet the person you want to communicate with. And even then you can be surveillance by air, at least connecting you to the person you met, expanding future surveillance to that person.
said by N3OGH :Any sense of privacy anyone ever had living in the modern age is a work of fiction. Has been since the early 20th century. In some ways that's correct. In some ways not. There was never a general right to privacy until the 1960s when the Supreme Court discovered it in the 14th Amendment while deciding whether someone had the right to birth control when Connecticut banned it. (Griswold v. Connecticut.).
So, in fact, the concept of us having a general privacy right is relatively new. And, it came about in large part because the Supreme Court "discovered" in the 1920s that the framers of the 14th amendment (1866) intended the Bill of Rights to be applicable to State and private infringement. They began a 50-year campaign selectively incorporating clauses of the Bill of Rights. That was a major transfer of power to the Federal government to expand our rights. And, at the same time diminish our rights because the Feds had more power over the states (who previously operated with more autonomy).
I think what you're noting is the rapid expansion of technology, communication, travel, "virtual money." There's far more that's visible compared to 100 years ago when, if the local sheriff knew you owned "Old Paint" it didn't mean he knew where you rode off with him. But, I think under the pre-1960 system (and pre-1920 system, when states regularly infringed the Bill of Rights) it would be even worse.
Mark | |
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs | WOW, good SCOTUS reference.
I'm impressed. No smart ass on my part, either...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to N3OGH
said by N3OGH :said by CrazyFingers :If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right comrade? Shit, it's gotten to the point where your hopeful to be ex wife can subpoena EZ Pass to get your toll records. Or because you have bought a GM Car with OnStar you have given the Police permission to track your movements due to the ability of the OnStar Control Center to flip the "Stolen Car" switch and activate the continuous GPS Tracking Mode. At least, unlike Caller*ID and ANI, Hollywood has acknowledged that this capability exists and uses it as part of their plots. With Caller*ID and ANI it was years before they would stop doing the "Keep them talking while we track the call" routine when the call is automatically reverse traced and the number displayed if you let the phone ring twice (in a Kidnap/etc. situation a switch can be flipped at the central office and the ANI information will be displayed which thus bypasses a do-not-display Caller*ID *xx request made when placing the call).
Talking about EZ Pass, there have been claims of the records being used to issue Speeding Tickets (due to you passing though Toll Barrier #2 too soon after passing though Toll Barrier #1 [ie: you must have been speeding to have traveled the distance in that elapsed time). | |
jdjbuffalo
join:2004-01-17
Denver, CO
| reply to amigo_boy
To say that privacy is a new thing (150+ years old) is not even close to accurate. I'll agree that perhaps the way in which we describe the term "privacy" could be classified as new but the fundamental rights which make up privacy are as old as time.
People, in general, need things to be able to keep things to themselves that they don't want others to know about. For example, do you close the door when you go to the bathroom. Why do you do that? When you have sex with your partner, why do you close the door or why aren't you having sex out on your front lawn?
Even the framers of the constitution understood the need for privacy (unfortunately for us they didn't use that exact word).
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. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by jdjbuffalo :but the fundamental rights which make up privacy are as old as time. That's what the Supreme Court said. (Google for Griswold v. Connecticut.). They found it in the "penumbras" (the shadows or margins) of the Constitution. It was used to overturn a State ban on contraception, and later legalization of abortion.
The Court's language asserts that privacy is not explicitly protected by the Constitution. And, this was a landmark ruling. Therefore, it's correct to say that a right to privacy is relatively new (at least as far as the government reconizing it). And, it is true to say that this recognition wouldn't have occurred if the Court hadn't begun the process of "selective incorporation" in the 1920s. Prior to this, the Bill of Rights was only a bar against Congress. States regularly infringed explicitely enumerated rights, not just those in the margins.
If you want to argue a libertarian point of view that rights are preexistant, that's fine with me. But, the Supreme court didn't recognize this one until the 1960s. Making it, for all practical purposes "relatively new." And the result of a vastly larger expansion of rights that began in the 1920s (or, vastly larger and intrusive government, considering the power over the states that this implied.).
Mark | |
jdjbuffalo
join:2004-01-17
Denver, CO
| Thanks, interesting Supreme Court case. I've always wondered which one did that (I knew that it was a USSC case that defined privacy in the context of the Constitution but never researched which one).
Personally, I think that it couldn't be clearer than what it says in the Constitution "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" which sounds exactly like privacy but obviously my interpretation is different than the USSC.
This is one of many reasons we are in dire need of several new amendments to the constitution. | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| said by jdjbuffalo :Personally, I think that it couldn't be clearer than what it says in the Constitution " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" which sounds exactly like privacy but obviously my interpretation is different than the USSC. I think the difference is whether something is justifiably illegal (making you subject to searches and seizures), or unjustifiably illegal because of your privacy interests. Griswold was the first time the Court legalized something based upon a right to privacy. A *very narrow* finding. The Court hasn't legalized possession of automatic weapons, marijuana or pirate radio based upon a right to privacy. You're only protected in the pursuit of enforcing those law.
They justified their decision the same way you did (it's implicit). But, this is one of those win/lose propositions. People affected by state bans of contraception came out winners. But, states came out losers. This was another precedent in the Court's 40-year "selective incorporation" which dramatically altered the Federal/State relationship, putting state action under federal scrutiny.
Like anything, it's had it's good and bad points. Power is power. Do you want the state to be supreme (and legalize racial segregation with no recourse above the state?). Or, a federation of states (a larger collective standard) that has the same chance of imposing looney social standards? It's all mob rule. In some cases there's safety in larger numbers. In other cases it would have been better to be a smaller group, protected from the larger mob.
If the recent (legal) standard for a privacy right interests you, google for "selective incorporation." The 14th Amendment (and it being taken seriously 50 years later, long after it was intended to solve a problem) is an interesting topic. It's amazing how the Supreme Court can go 50 years (and 5,000 lynchings), then with a straight face say, "hey, I just realized the framers of the 14th amendment intended the bill of rights to be applicable to the states..."
Mark | |
rtcy
RTCY
Premium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA
·Verizon west (ex G..
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to N3OGH
if you're a real paranoia freak like me you use pgp2.2 the one before the CIA went after Phil for. use those keys to sign your stuff with. now if I only had something worth encrypting  still I feel "somebody's watching me" LOL | |
|
