[optimistically_conservative]

I thought that while everyone was complaining about the penumbra of privacy interpreted into the Constitution by the liberal court, I would take the opportunity to remind everyone that you don't have it at work, in public or where the constitution doesn't operate (no restraint outside our borders)

- and just how good we are getting at reducing those "zones of anonymity".

[agitator]

On the other hand, privacy can be enforced within a corporate context whether people know it or not and the corporate context often extends to the public. Surveillance technology owned and operated by government is one thing subject to Constitutional protections, corporate use is quite another and is subject to whatever legislation the people decide on. Government doesn't usually own and operate the most pervasive technology, they're just customers when it suits their purposes. Whether you can get a politician to legislate privacy protections on corporate entities is another story.

[Blood of Tyrants]

A country with a Constitution based on freedom ABHORS anything like this. Our founding fathers could have never envisioned that the federal government might someday have the means to monitor vertually every public place. But they KNEW of police states where people were encouraged to rat each other out and did a damned fine job of limiting the government to prevent this.

BTW, the Constitution is supposed to limit the scope of government. If it isn't in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it.