Posted on 09/15/2009 11:54:02 PM PDT by Tulsa Ramjet
The tragically amusing thing is that despite the monitoring, they still underestimate how many people are onto them and their scheming.
I recall when anonymizers and encryption first started getting banned.
Do you think that those 20-somethings are actually aware of this stuff?!?
So you think that it’s in the Constitution that the government has the authorization to archive from private websites, not just the official government one? Heck, why are they even on Facebook, etc??
dear leader ping
This is what has amazed me. Glenn Beck said on FOX News it was irrelevant that most of the news media minimized the numbers of protesters who came to D.C. on Sept. 12, because the White House would know how many showed up.
Obama began his political career in Chicago which is practically a one-party environment. As a rising star in a powerful political machine he could misinterpret the lockstep loyalty of the masses and begin to believe he was invincible. In reality he is a one-trick pony and the public has become immune to that trick. "Tragically amusing" is right on.
The words “for public use” are actually in the 5th Amendment, and were included as a clear and hard limit on governments’ powers of imminent domain. Yet five supreme court justices ignored those words.
I don't think the word “privacy” is even in the Constitution at all. Further, I do not think “privacy” can be an issue when discussing things that a person willingly posts to a web-site or web-sites which can, will and are intended to be, viewed by millions of people.
gnip...
My point is, it’s their OFFICIAL Facebook listing.
In fact there was a brouhahah not long ago over FB archiving the data of account holders, but it was decided that anything that goes on any FB page belongs to the account holder and no one else. So, if you post something on the WH Facebook page, it belongs to the WH, not Facebook, and not the person who posted there.
I think that many people here on this site value their privacy
If FReepers value their privacy and do not like government sticking their big nose in their business please send me a private message.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy
Things not in the Constitution
The Right To Privacy
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy.
However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public’s attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th’s search and seizure limits, and the 5th’s self-incrimination limit.
bump
Good Synopsis
It’s not mine.
Here’s another take on privacy. By Harry Browne, libertarian.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
“The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, where’s the right to privacy?
It is clearly in those two amendments.
The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.
That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn’t specifically authorized in the Constitution.”
and a discussion here
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/01/21/the-constitution-and-the-right-to-privacy/
and a site dedicated to privacy issues among other things:
http://www.ladylibrty.com/privacy.html
See sidebar discussion labeled:
The Right to Privacy
Also, same site:
“W.H. collects Web users’ data without notice 09-16-09
The hypcricy [sic] doesn’t get a lot more blatant than this, does it?
Meanwhile, the standard caveats apply not just to the White House but to myriad other online entities: If you don’t want everybody to know it, don’t post it.”
Thanks
I was merely providing an example of the supreme court actively allowing the government to violate our explicitly stated right to not have our private property seized on a whim. A court that would do that might do ANYTHING regarding an implied, but not explicitly stated, right such as privacy.
And I still don't agree that there should be any expectation of privacy regarding things that one publicly posts on web-site(s) for millions of other people to read. If you want to keep something private, keep it on your person, in your house, or amongst your papers and effects, don't shout it from a twenty-first century roof-top like "Facebook".
I value my privacy also.
Which is why there are some things I do not mention, write about, or discuss on public web-logs.
If I post it here, I do NOT expect it to stay private.
PS - I did not say that people do not have a right to privacy. I said, corectly, that the “right to privacy” is not one of the rights expressly mentioned in the Constitution.
I agree
See end of post I made later:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2340814/posts?page=115#115
and see reminder/caution from that site linked:
“Meanwhile, the standard caveats apply not just to the White House but to myriad other online entities: If you don’t want everybody to know it, don’t post it.””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.