Posted on 01/20/2016 12:37:07 PM PST by Kaslin
Many people feel they have a right to privacy, but do they? Does the Constitution protect the notion of privacy? Well yes and no. The general right to privacy is derived loosely from three places in the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment known as The Liberty Clause. None of them are enough to protect privacy in the modern age.
The 1st Amendment protects privacy of beliefs among other things like speech, press, religion, the ability to meet peaceably, and petition the government. The 3rd Amendment protects your home from being taken over by the government. The 4th Amendment protects your stuff. Basically, it states you have the right to be secure in your person, your house, your papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure. It declares things like, probable cause and warrants, must be issued to break your "right" in a particular instance and in a certain location. This is a big one. And lastly, the 14th Amendment says that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
These rights guaranteed within our founding documents don't live up to our need for privacy in the modern age. Where does email fall in there? Maybe it could be protected with the 4th Amendment, but it travels over servers and even in and out of other countries. Did you ever see the police taking someone's garbage from the curb to look for clues? Once it is not on your property, it's not your garbage anymore. It's free game. Our emails travel all over the world electronically.
Ask Hillary about servers and emails. I bet she'd vote for a little more privacy right now. In her case there is probable cause and there are warrants forcing her to turn them over. The problem is we don't have strong enough laws that protect the average citizen from being abused by the powers that be.
I've done a fair amount of research and written about this several times. The only piece of legislation that will even begin to bring us into the modern age of privacy protections is the LEADS ACT (Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act). Sounds exciting doesn't it. Well it's not. It's boring, until it's your privacy that's wronged.
Where did the LEADS Act come from and why is it important? Here's the short version.
DOJ v. Microsoft
The Department of Justice opened an investigation into a drug-running operation, it demanded that Microsoft turn over emails housed in Ireland on a data server owned, not by the company, but by its Irish subsidiary. Since the material is housed abroad and pertains to an Irish citizen, the federal government has no jurisdiction to demand the material. The company offered to comply with DOJ's demands but only if the government followed the same rules that would apply if they were demanding a paper documents, as opposed to an electronic form of communications. Congress has never authorized the Department of Justice to issue warrants for material outside the reach of U.S. territory but little things like warrants and constitutional procedures now take a backseat to the ever growing demands and power of the surveillance state.
In a case that has implications for all Americans, and for anyone willing to use an American company to house their data in the cloud, the issue ended up in court with the DOJ arguing, "What's yours is mine."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is a stepping forward in protecting privacy in the digital age while setting parameters for the government to get the information they need in a criminal investigation.
The LEADS ACT is bipartisan. One of the bill's Democratic supporters, Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) succinctly described the thrust of the issue, saying "Law enforcement agencies wishing to access Americans' data in the cloud ought to get a warrant and just like warrants for physical evidence."
The government's position that ... warrants do apply abroad puts U.S. cloud providers in the position of having to break the privacy laws of foreign countries in which they do business in order to comply with U.S. law. This not only hurts our businesses' competitiveness and costs American jobs, but it also invites reciprocal treatment by our international trading partners."
Privacy in your emails is just as important as in your home. The fact that we are electronically global means we need protection abroad as well. It's simply time to clarify the rules for law enforcement and citizens alike. Here is an opportunity to protect privacy.
Will congress do that? Probably not without some coaxing. This piece of legislation can and should happen this year. Ask your Senator or Congressman about it. Or if you happen to run into a presidential candidate and want to get them off their talking points, ask them where they stand on the LEADS Act. They may stare at you like a deer in the headlights, but at least you brought up something intelligent with bi-partisan support that our country really needs.
I think privacy is a right but it is not one guaranteed by the Constitution.
It also has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
The problem with this article is that it only addresses the privacy issue from the standpoint if government. If I am sending an e-mail message that gets routed through multiple servers and stored in a data center somewhere, I really should have no expectation of privacy with ANYONE, not just the government.
Reasonable expectation is defined by the courts, and it is whatever they say it is, independent of what anybody else holds.
Used to be, telephone was insecure, then Congress passed a law outlawing wiretapping, then the excutive wiretaps at will with the issue coming up only if the evidence is used at trial.
Neither. It’s private property.
Except for health care, that's a right, according to them.
Gotta love ya' some busy-bodies.
This was a big legal point in the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, when Linda Tripp recorded her conversations with Lewinsky and later made them public.
Privacy is a right, but it is limited and depends on the context.
The constitution limits the government, not the people.
Just because a “right” is not enumerated in the constitution does not mean it does not exist.
It’s supposed to be covered under that “liberty” thing.
Per the 10th amendment:
“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.”
I read this as saying that the Feds cannot impose on your liberty, only the states can. Just like with the Feds, state constitutions enumerate what the states can do, not what you can do.
You can do anything, not specifically enumerated as illegal. You don’t need proactive permission from the state first.
So if politicians want to ban something, they can, but it has to be banned at the state level, and they still can’t ban the stuff that’s in the bill of rights, which is why they were added.
As such, you do have a “right to privacy” until your state takes it away, through due process.
But if you are the government, you can do the illegal with impunity. The only remedy is tossing the evidence. If the evidence never gets to court, nobody is the wiser.
Privacy is totally an illusion, except to the extent you can prevent all others from seeing your communications.
Privacy is the modern day term for Modesty. Modesty was born of the survival need to protect oneself when vulnerable to attack and unable to physically defend a challenge.....think of the things that we consider when considering modesty....urinating.....we are physically compromised and unable to defend ourselves in this posture,....so we hide in order to accomplish this physiological need while hoping to escape attack. And so on and so forth with all else...sexual activity, dressing, bathing etc etc.
So, it is impossible to say if Privacy is a Right...or if it is a modern Defense Mechanism
Amendment IV:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”
There it is.
Ultimately, socialists don’t believe in rights.
They only call it a right now because they want to deconstruct the USA and cause chaos and then come in pretending to save it.
The pro-abort goons argued successfully in Roe v Wade that since the Third Amendment restricts the gov’t from quartering soldiers in private homes without permission, it therefore confers the right of privacy.
The attorneys went on to say that if home ownership confers individual privacy,by analogy, what could be more private then a woman’s body?
So while abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, privacy is inferred by the Third Amendment.
My view is that it is clearly a Tenth Amendment issue. Morally, I consider it to be an abomination.
Well said. If I print the email and post it to the telephone pole its the same as sending it as email.
There is Constitutional Rights. There is law. Then there are civilized moraes and Religious moraes.
In a free country, people are free to act uncivilized and anti-Religious. But the free country needs the voluntary controls we place on ourselves. We need the voluntary inhibitions described by Alexis De Touqueville.
We are losing them. The left seeks to remove all traditional voluntary social controls and impose solely involuntary controls from government.
The Constitution is the wrong place to look for a right to privacy. What one should look for there is any clause which grants the government power to intrude on privacy. The issue is not a "right to privacy," but a "lack of any government power to invade privacy."
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.
